From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lukas Wunner Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Use LocateHandleBuffer instead of LocateHandle Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:32:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20161006093200.GA6925@wunner.de> References: <1d7915dc0dd328ca04088f6b8b3fcfad5cec55a0.1473275006.git.lukas@wunner.de> <20160909115951.GA29385@wunner.de> <20161003193220.GI16071@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20161004165349.GA5019@wunner.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Matt Fleming , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 11:52:32AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > What is the oldest UEFI version we claim to support? For ARM, this is > not an issue, but it appears that LocateHandleBuffer () was introduced > in v1.10 UGA was apparently introduced with v1.10, GOP was introduced later than v1.10, it follows that availability of LocateHandleBuffer() can be assumed at least when searching for these two protocols. Would a patch be entertained which uses LocateHandleBuffer for these two but leaves the PCI ROM retrieval unchanged? On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 05:25:44PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > However, we've had our share of breakage with > the stub code, which is difficult to debug on anything except > development hardware, and so I think we should not take this change > (and Matt appears to agree). Thanks for the clarification, however I don't quite follow: Is the rejection of the patch based on the intent to maintain support for EFI v1.0+ (which isn't an argument for UGA + GOP as lined out above) or is it based on a gut feeling that the patch might cause breakage for whatever reason. (Perhaps firmware bugs? Not sure what is meant here.) Thanks, Lukas