From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: Usage of efi_enabled - Was: Re: [PATCH RFC 33/35] arm : acpi enable efi for acpi Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:18:04 +0000 Message-ID: <1423714684.27551.21.camel@citrix.com> References: <1423058539-26403-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org> <1423058539-26403-34-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org> <54DB261B.2090706@linaro.org> <54DB3CCE020000780005EF07@mail.emea.novell.com> <1423651766.27551.11.camel@citrix.com> <54DB4985020000780005EFC8@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54DB4985020000780005EFC8@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Julien Grall , tim@xen.org, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Roy Franz , stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Parth Dixit , christoffer.dall@linaro.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 11:22 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Does that also imply that some code which is using it to signal > > availability of Runtime Services should be switch to some other (new?) > > variable? > > I hope not - we already have efi_rs_enable, Good, I was just mislead by the nearby comment then (which sort of implied that efi_enable == 0 due to no RTS support). Ian.