From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] X86: Revamp reboot behaviour to match Windows more closely
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:58:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101209225833.GA25750@srcf.ucam.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D015DEF.9000302@zytor.com>
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 02:53:35PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 02:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. The date cutoff would be on
>> the order of 2001 (anything after this will have been tested with XP).
>> The spec that defines this behaviour only came into existence in August
>> 2000, and any older hardware will be missing the flag that indicates
>> that this feature is supported. It doesn't seem realistic to believe
>> that there's any real body of hardware that sets the flag but otherwise
>> has a broken implementation.
>>
>
> 2001 is probably a good date, then.
>
> It's pretty safe you'll see the bit being set on systems which are older
> than that, even if it was not defined at the time it was created -- just
> being garbage. That's par for the course in BIOS land.
There's a revision field in the FADT. They'd need to simultaneously
provide an incorrect revision *and* by pure luck set the 10th bit of a
32-bit register. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, and I don't see
a benefit in adding extra code to force hardware into a less-tested
configuration.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-09 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-09 21:46 [PATCH 1/3] X86: Revamp reboot behaviour to match Windows more closely Matthew Garrett
2010-12-09 21:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] ACPICA: Fix access width for reset vector Matthew Garrett
2010-12-09 22:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-09 23:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-09 23:26 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-12-09 21:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Bug compatibility for Windows on the ACPI reboot vector Matthew Garrett
2010-12-09 22:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-09 22:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-09 22:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] X86: Revamp reboot behaviour to match Windows more closely H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-09 22:32 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-12-09 22:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-09 22:38 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-12-09 22:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-09 22:51 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-12-09 22:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-09 22:58 ` Matthew Garrett [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101209225833.GA25750@srcf.ucam.org \
--to=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.