* [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff @ 2014-08-29 15:05 Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 15:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 16:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff Mark Rutland 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct PSCI calls or other methods to power down the system. Enable the existing efi_reboot() code by supplying a definition of efi_poweroff_required() that returns true. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c index e72f3100958f..78c85c4252bc 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c @@ -475,3 +475,11 @@ err_unmap: return -1; } early_initcall(arm64_enter_virtual_mode); + +/* + * Override the weak definition in drivers/firmware/efi/reboot.c + */ +bool efi_poweroff_required(void) +{ + return true; +} -- 1.8.3.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 15:05 [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 15:05 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 15:57 ` Mark Salter ` (2 more replies) 2014-08-29 16:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff Mark Rutland 1 sibling, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) local_irq_disable(); smp_send_stop(); + /* + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. + */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) + efi_reboot(REBOOT_WARM, NULL); + /* Now call the architecture specific reboot code. */ if (arm_pm_restart) arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd); -- 1.8.3.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 15:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 15:57 ` Mark Salter 2014-08-29 16:04 ` Catalin Marinas 2014-08-29 16:06 ` Mark Rutland 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Mark Salter @ 2014-08-29 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 17:05 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct > PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. > > For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the > arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c I get: arch/arm64/kernel/process.c: In function ?machine_restart?: arch/arm64/kernel/process.c:188:2: error: implicit declaration of function ?efi_reboot? unless I add #include <linux/efi.h> > @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) > local_irq_disable(); > smp_send_stop(); > > + /* > + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede > + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. > + */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) This test isn't necessary. > + efi_reboot(REBOOT_WARM, NULL); Why not pass reboot_mode instead? > + > /* Now call the architecture specific reboot code. */ > if (arm_pm_restart) > arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 15:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 15:57 ` Mark Salter @ 2014-08-29 16:04 ` Catalin Marinas 2014-08-29 16:12 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 16:06 ` Mark Rutland 2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-08-29 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct > PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. > > For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the > arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) > local_irq_disable(); > smp_send_stop(); > > + /* > + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede > + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. > + */ Why do you make this the preferred method? Is there a risk that UEFI is broken and we want to override it with a SoC-specific driver (I wouldn't like it but it's still an option). There are also some patches here that try to get rid of arm_pm_restart: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/19/665 Once there are no drivers for arm64 setting arm_pm_restart explicitly I'll remove it. > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) efi_enabled always returns false if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI). > + efi_reboot(REBOOT_WARM, NULL); > + > /* Now call the architecture specific reboot code. */ > if (arm_pm_restart) > arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd); > -- > 1.8.3.2 > > -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 16:04 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2014-08-29 16:12 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2014-08-29 17:57 ` Mark Rutland 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 29 August 2014 18:04, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct >> PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. >> >> For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the >> arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c >> index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c >> @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) >> local_irq_disable(); >> smp_send_stop(); >> >> + /* >> + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede >> + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. >> + */ > > Why do you make this the preferred method? Is there a risk that UEFI is > broken and we want to override it with a SoC-specific driver (I wouldn't > like it but it's still an option). > For poweroff (the other patch), it may not make a huge difference, but the SBBR does state it explicitly. For reboot, we *have* to use EFI reboot in order to support capsules: when using capsules (for instance, for updating the firmware), you need to use EFI reboot as you need to pass the return code of UpdateCapsule() (a runtime service) to ResetSystem() > There are also some patches here that try to get rid of arm_pm_restart: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/19/665 > > Once there are no drivers for arm64 setting arm_pm_restart explicitly > I'll remove it. > OK, good to know. I will revisit this once that stuff is in. -- Ard. >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) > > efi_enabled always returns false if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI). > >> + efi_reboot(REBOOT_WARM, NULL); >> + >> /* Now call the architecture specific reboot code. */ >> if (arm_pm_restart) >> arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd); >> -- >> 1.8.3.2 >> >> > > -- > Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 16:12 ` Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2014-08-29 16:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-30 2:17 ` Leif Lindholm 2014-08-29 17:57 ` Mark Rutland 1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-08-29 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:12:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 29 August 2014 18:04, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct > >> PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. > >> > >> For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the > >> arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > >> index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > >> @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) > >> local_irq_disable(); > >> smp_send_stop(); > >> > >> + /* > >> + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede > >> + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. > >> + */ > > > > Why do you make this the preferred method? Is there a risk that UEFI is > > broken and we want to override it with a SoC-specific driver (I wouldn't > > like it but it's still an option). > > > > For poweroff (the other patch), it may not make a huge difference, but > the SBBR does state it explicitly. The SBBR scope reads like this: This document defines the boot and Runtime Services that are expected by an enterprise platform Operating System or hypervisor, for an ARM AArch64 server, which is SBSA-compliant and follows the UEFI and ACPI specifications. Which means that it does not apply to non-SBSA or SBSA systems that use UEFI but not ACPI? > For reboot, we *have* to use EFI reboot in order to support capsules: > when using capsules (for instance, for updating the firmware), you > need to use EFI reboot as you need to pass the return code of > UpdateCapsule() (a runtime service) to ResetSystem() That's a better argument ;). But I think with the restart patches you could set some priority and if absolutely needed on a platform as workaround we could register a driver with a higher priority (and losing the above features). -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2014-08-29 16:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-30 2:17 ` Leif Lindholm 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 29 August 2014 18:25, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:12:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 29 August 2014 18:04, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct >> >> PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. >> >> >> >> For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the >> >> arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> >> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ >> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c >> >> index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c >> >> @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) >> >> local_irq_disable(); >> >> smp_send_stop(); >> >> >> >> + /* >> >> + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede >> >> + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. >> >> + */ >> > >> > Why do you make this the preferred method? Is there a risk that UEFI is >> > broken and we want to override it with a SoC-specific driver (I wouldn't >> > like it but it's still an option). >> > >> >> For poweroff (the other patch), it may not make a huge difference, but >> the SBBR does state it explicitly. > > The SBBR scope reads like this: > > This document defines the boot and Runtime Services that are expected > by an enterprise platform Operating System or hypervisor, for an ARM > AArch64 server, which is SBSA-compliant and follows the UEFI and ACPI > specifications. > > Which means that it does not apply to non-SBSA or SBSA systems that use > UEFI but not ACPI? > Good question. >> For reboot, we *have* to use EFI reboot in order to support capsules: >> when using capsules (for instance, for updating the firmware), you >> need to use EFI reboot as you need to pass the return code of >> UpdateCapsule() (a runtime service) to ResetSystem() > > That's a better argument ;). But I think with the restart patches you > could set some priority and if absolutely needed on a platform as > workaround we could register a driver with a higher priority (and losing > the above features). > I will wait for those patches to land then. -- Ard. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2014-08-29 16:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-30 2:17 ` Leif Lindholm 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Leif Lindholm @ 2014-08-30 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:25:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > For poweroff (the other patch), it may not make a huge difference, but > > the SBBR does state it explicitly. > > The SBBR scope reads like this: > > This document defines the boot and Runtime Services that are expected > by an enterprise platform Operating System or hypervisor, for an ARM > AArch64 server, which is SBSA-compliant and follows the UEFI and ACPI > specifications. > > Which means that it does not apply to non-SBSA or SBSA systems that use > UEFI but not ACPI? It applies to all UEFI systems, really. But the SBBR explicitly enumerates certain features already covered by the spec, to reduce risk of misinterpretation (i.e. not reading the whole UEFI spec when implementing). > > For reboot, we *have* to use EFI reboot in order to support capsules: > > when using capsules (for instance, for updating the firmware), you > > need to use EFI reboot as you need to pass the return code of > > UpdateCapsule() (a runtime service) to ResetSystem() > > That's a better argument ;). But I think with the restart patches you > could set some priority and if absolutely needed on a platform as > workaround we could register a driver with a higher priority (and losing > the above features). That sounds sensible to me. But the kernel should probably be very noisy on the console if that override was done. And we would also want to store that fact somwehere, to prevent any capsule runtime service calls being made. / Leif ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 16:12 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2014-08-29 17:57 ` Mark Rutland 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-08-29 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:12:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 29 August 2014 18:04, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct > >> PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. > >> > >> For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the > >> arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > >> index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > >> @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) > >> local_irq_disable(); > >> smp_send_stop(); > >> > >> + /* > >> + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede > >> + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. > >> + */ > > > > Why do you make this the preferred method? Is there a risk that UEFI is > > broken and we want to override it with a SoC-specific driver (I wouldn't > > like it but it's still an option). > > > > For poweroff (the other patch), it may not make a huge difference, but > the SBBR does state it explicitly. > > For reboot, we *have* to use EFI reboot in order to support capsules: > when using capsules (for instance, for updating the firmware), you > need to use EFI reboot as you need to pass the return code of > UpdateCapsule() (a runtime service) to ResetSystem() Ah. Could you drop that in the commit message next time around? That's a far clearer (and stronger) argument than saying that the runtime services are preferred. Cheers, Mark. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset 2014-08-29 15:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 15:57 ` Mark Salter 2014-08-29 16:04 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2014-08-29 16:06 ` Mark Rutland 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-08-29 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hi Ard, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct > PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system. > > For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the > arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules. This is changing with the restart handler callchain series [1]. I think you need to rework this atop of that. Thanks, Mark. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280519.html > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > index 1309d64aa926..335a93da5eeb 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c > @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd) > local_irq_disable(); > smp_send_stop(); > > + /* > + * arm_pm_restart is exported to modules, so the only way to supersede > + * it with efi_reboot() is to call it here. > + */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) > + efi_reboot(REBOOT_WARM, NULL); > + > /* Now call the architecture specific reboot code. */ > if (arm_pm_restart) > arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd); > -- > 1.8.3.2 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff 2014-08-29 15:05 [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 15:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset Ard Biesheuvel @ 2014-08-29 16:01 ` Mark Rutland 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-08-29 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hi Ard, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:56PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct > PSCI calls or other methods to power down the system. Could you elaborate on why they should be preferred? Mark. > Enable the existing efi_reboot() code by supplying a definition of > efi_poweroff_required() that returns true. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > index e72f3100958f..78c85c4252bc 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > @@ -475,3 +475,11 @@ err_unmap: > return -1; > } > early_initcall(arm64_enter_virtual_mode); > + > +/* > + * Override the weak definition in drivers/firmware/efi/reboot.c > + */ > +bool efi_poweroff_required(void) > +{ > + return true; > +} > -- > 1.8.3.2 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-08-30 2:17 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-08-29 15:05 [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 15:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 15:57 ` Mark Salter 2014-08-29 16:04 ` Catalin Marinas 2014-08-29 16:12 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-29 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2014-08-29 16:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2014-08-30 2:17 ` Leif Lindholm 2014-08-29 17:57 ` Mark Rutland 2014-08-29 16:06 ` Mark Rutland 2014-08-29 16:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] efi/arm64: use UEFI for system poweroff Mark Rutland
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).