On 04/06/2014 10:40 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:13:59 +0100 > Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: >> >>> I don't think there is enough justification to revert the patch. We >>> introduce EFI into the default list, we didn't see any reason to remove >>> it out so far. >> >> We should be using the EFI method, yes. But it seems that CF9 isn't >> safe, so we should drop that. >> > > Windows does not use CF9 and there are known, documented cases where CF9 > will not work reliably. That includes reliable reboot on some Baytrail > systems. (Erratum VLT60 and VLT62). > > So we really shouldn't be doing 0xCF9 except as a last resort if we are > still alive and have been through the official reboot methods. > No question. The question at hand is if we should do it after all other non-terminal (BIOS, triple) methods have been tried. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|