Re: EFI and ACPI

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <CALokOgw8HWfKW2KsTHLyOkqYEXnniFgO2yqxfYAsnQukb6oEJw%mail.gmail.com@localhost>,
Sheda  <shedatc%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost> wrote:
>> In article <CALokOgxnvQkF8y_ZddBch4kjxQKztarfFOuCyetj_J4oLFhQ+Q%mail.gmail.com@localhost>,
>> Sheda  <shedatc%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>>>The patch (grub-knetbsd-efi-systbl.patch) I submitted to the GRUB team
>>>in 2014 was commited. So it would be great to integrate its
>>>NetBSD-counterpart (efi.patch) or at least discuss it.
>>>The problem this patches solve consist in booting NetBSD/amd64 on an
>>>EFI machine via GRUB because, AFAIK, there's no alternative.
>>
>> You mean this patch:
>> https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2014/05/22/msg017119.html
>
>Yes, the NetBSD-part of this patch as the GRUB-part was committed.
>
>> How can we test this?
>
>You should attempt to boot NetBSD with an EFI with no Compatibility
>Support Module (CSM) enabled. Doing that should result in the kernel
>being unable to locate the ACPI tables. AFAIK, that's where GRUB
>become the only option: install GRUB with EFI support and attempt to
>boot NetBSD using the knetbsd command. The patch should do 2 things:
>- make the kernel support a new parameter, BTINFO_EFI, that is
>expected to be the physical address of the EFI System Table;
>- and use this information to locate the ACPI tables.

I am inclined to just commit this until we get native bootloader EFI
support. What do others think?

christos