From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?M=c3=b4she_van_der_Sterre?= Subject: Re: BGRT warns again on my system Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 16:57:17 +0200 Message-ID: <5766B2CD.6010401@moshe.nl> References: <20160528222531.GA10687@x> <574A6B5D.60200@moshe.nl> <20160602092438.GD2658@codeblueprint.co.uk> <57669AC0.7010905@moshe.nl> <20160619143840.GA18605@x> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160619143840.GA18605@x> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Josh Triplett Cc: Matt Fleming , Andy Lutomirski , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 06/19/2016 04:38 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:14:40PM +0200, M=F4she van der Sterre wrot= e: >> On 06/02/2016 11:24 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: >> >>> If this does indeed fix Andy's immediate issue (and it looks like >>> it would) I'm happy to apply this as an interim solution. >> I have tested that this does indeed fix the warning for Andy's value= of >> ->image_address, but off course I can't test this with the actual ha= rdware >> that Andy has. Do you want me to resend this with a commit message s= o it can >> be applied? > With a commit message and a clearer pr_notice than "is bogus", yes. H= ow > about "image address not a valid physical memory address"? The sub-par notice text crossed my mind when I originally mailed it, bu= t=20 I forgot about it today. I like your suggestion so I'll use that one.