>>> On 06.08.12 at 00:28, "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2012 02:29 PM, Jérôme Carretero wrote: >> Hi, >> >> My PC (AMD Bulldozer + Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX) booted fine from UEFI >> and it broke between v3.5 and v3.6-rc1. >> Other machines with old BIOSes booted fine so I looked into EFI-related >> patches trying to revert them, because I didn't know what else to do. >> >> Bingo, bacef661: x86-64/efi: Use EFI to deal with platform wall clock. >> >> At the moment I reverted this commit after v3.6-rc1-133-g42a579a, >> and it boots fine. >> >> This really not my domain so tell me if I can help testing. >> > > Thank you... we were aware of the problem but had not been able to > reproduce it, so we had hoped someone would bisect or otherwise identify > the faulty patch.
Faulty? Without technical detail I'd be careful with this, as there's too many broken EFI implementation around. The only change that has a (very low) potential for causing problems by itself is the earlier calling of efi_enter_virtual_mode(), which was requested/recommended by Matthew. I am e.g. (meanwhile) aware of (Intel) systems that use floating point instructions in the UEFI runtime code, which is clearly a violation of the spec; having the kernel continue to be not spec compliant is a questionable tradeoff. In any case, without having seen _how_ things break I don't think a decision should be taken if/how to address this (apparent) regression. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
