On 04/06/2014 10:40 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:13:59 +0100
> Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> 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-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/
