[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/shutdown: use ACPI reboot method for Dell PowerEdge R540
On 05/14/2018 04:17 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 14.05.18 at 13:02, <ross.lagerwall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:When EFI booting the Dell PowerEdge R540 it consistently wanders into the weeds and gets an invalid opcode in the EFI ResetSystem call. This is the same bug which affects the PowerEdge R740 so fix it in the same way: quirk this hardware to use the ACPI reboot method instead. BIOS Information Vendor: Dell Inc. Version: 1.3.7 Release Date: 02/09/2018 System Information Manufacturer: Dell Inc. Product Name: PowerEdge R540 Signed-off-by: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@xxxxxxxxxx>Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> with a remark:--- a/xen/arch/x86/shutdown.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/shutdown.c @@ -520,6 +520,15 @@ static struct dmi_system_id __initdata reboot_dmi_table[] = { DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "PowerEdge R740"), }, }, + { /* Handle problems with rebooting on Dell PowerEdge R540. */ + .callback = override_reboot, + .driver_data = (void *)(long)BOOT_ACPI, + .ident = "Dell PowerEdge R540", + .matches = { + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Dell Inc."), + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "PowerEdge R540"), + }, + }, { }Assuming ordinary numbering of machine models (R540 being older than R740), I think it would be better to place the new entry ahead of the R740 one. Should I end up being the one to commit this, I would take the liberty of doing the re-arrangement at that point. My googling suggests they're both the same generation of server, with the R740 being more powerful than the R540. I don't mind either way in which order they are placed although having R540 before R740 is indeed a bit more logical. -- Ross Lagerwall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |