[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot sequence loop
On 2014/2/28 13:56, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:22:37PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2014/2/28 12:56, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> EFI reboot is still somewhat unreliable - it may be safe after the
>>> recent patches to provide a 1:1 mapping.
>> So it's acceptable to put EFI in the default list.
> Probably, once we've got those patches landed (I've lost track of
> whether they're in 3.13 or aimed at 3.14)

You didn't look the reference I quoted in the patch.

It's stable if 32/64 bit linux call the corresponding 32/64bit EFI
runtime service. Matt Fleming's mixed mode is aiming at 3.15:

>>> CF9 is, as far as I know, not part of any spec, so it seems like a bad
>>> idea to put it in the default list.
>> Any hurt known if put it in the default list?
> Mm. Not all x86 platforms support cf8/cf9 (Moorestown, for instance) and
> so it's theoretically possible that they'd put some different hardware
> there instead. But then, Moorestown probably has its own reboot code, so
> that may not matter?

Yes, Moorestown has its own machine_ops. Instead of the system hanging
after issue "reboot" command, I think and suggest CF9 is worth to have a

>>> What do the ACPI reboot vectors look like on these systems?
>> Reset register address: 0xCF9
>> Value to cause reset: 0x6
> Huh. But that's almost exactly what the PCI reboot code would do. Why
> does the PCI method work but the ACPI one fail? Does it really depend on
> ORing the original value with the reset value? Or is the timing just
> somehow marginal?

reboot returns at:

if (!(acpi_gbl_FADT.flags & ACPI_FADT_RESET_REGISTER))

This is a ACPI bug or intention, who knows.

>>> This is definitely incorrect. The ACPI write *must* occur twice in order
>>> to be effective on various systems. EFI shouldn't be attempted until
>>> after the second ACPI write.
>> Do we have any spec mentioned that?
> Nope. This is entirely unspecified, it's just how things work - several
> vendors use cf9 for the ACPI reboot vector, and there have to be two
> writes to cf9 to trigger the reboot. Windows attempts the write twice,
> and as a result things work.

Thanks to clarify this, I'll refine the patch, including CF9 if you
don't have more concern.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-28 08:01    [W:0.221 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site