From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:28:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: arm: [U]EFI runtime services In-Reply-To: <1372345790.2522.26.camel@dabdike> References: <51CA2B03.4080106@wwwdotorg.org> <20130626135311.GA9078@rocoto.smurfnet.nu> <20130626135933.GQ22026@console-pimps.org> <1372257499.2168.5.camel@dabdike> <20130627013219.GA346@srcf.ucam.org> <1372314821.557.33.camel@dabdike> <20130627143714.GA12900@srcf.ucam.org> <1372345790.2522.26.camel@dabdike> Message-ID: <20130627172817.GB16316@srcf.ucam.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:09:50AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 15:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > And yet it's the only mode in which the firmrware is actually tested > > against an OS, so we don't have any real choice in the matter. > > Agree for x86 ... we just have to cope with the implementations we see > in the field. However, ARM has much more scope to have the UEFI > implementation developed collaboratively with Linux as the reference > platform. If we can convince the ARM implementors that > SetVirtualAddressMap is an accident waiting to happen, they might be > more flexible. The majority of existing ARM UEFI implementations have only ever been used to boot Windows, so like I said, this really isn't a safe assumption. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org