From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove warning in efi_enter_virtual_mode Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:57:40 -0700 Message-ID: <51705034.4030101@zytor.com> References: <1366127886-31460-1-git-send-email-bryan.odonoghue.lkml@nexus-software.ie> <516EAC4A.6040202@console-pimps.org> <516F1B90.9040508@nexus-software.ie> <516FD24A.3070502@console-pimps.org> <20130418163325.GA6884@leaf> <5170216C.9020300@zytor.com> <20130418164457.GB6884@leaf> <51704FA8.7060801@console-pimps.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51704FA8.7060801-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: Josh Triplett , Bryan O'Donoghue , matthew.garrett-05XSO3Yj/JvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Darren Hart , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Josh Boyer List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 04/18/2013 12:55 PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On 04/18/2013 05:44 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: >>>> The machine I developed the BGRT changes on kept the image below the 4G >>>> mark, inside one of the memory regions reclaimable via >>>> ExitBootServices(). >>> >>> Well, highmem is >= ~896M. Do you have a machine with BGRT over the >>> highmem mark? >> >> I don't have the machine in question anymore, and I don't remember. > > Sorry, I should have been more clear - having a BGRT image in highmem > has never worked for the reasons I outlined in my previous mail. What I > was really asking was: is it OK that we now explicitly don't support > that case? I'm working on the assumption that it's pointless writing > support for the BGRT in highmem because no such i386 machines exist. If > the BGRT code works for your i386 right now, the address isn't in highmem. > > If there are machines out there that would require us to write support, > it's probably worth doing now instead of punting. But it sounds like > there aren't any. > I suspect if there aren't any yet there WILL be. -hpa