rfc@edk2.groups.io

Home Messages Hashtags

Messages

Between

and

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] EDK II Continuous Integration Phase 1

In that wiki page, it says: "To work with this branch and run tests immediately, all you need to do is: |pip install --upgrade -r requirements.txt stuart_setup -c .\CISettings.py stuart_update -c

By rebecca@... · #140 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

You need to post about yourself in this topic to actually get unrestricted (its a way of stopping bots): https://forum.audiogames.net/post/461466/#p461466 Sorry I didn't mention that, I forgot about

By Ethin Probst · #139 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

Hi Ethin I just get registered at the forum, but have no permission to post there. The message "Sorry! no permission to post a reply" is presented to my user. Thanks Rafael Em sex, 13 de set de

By Rafael Machado <rafaelrodrigues.machado@...> · #138 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

Hi Ethin I will contact the community you mentioned to get feedback and align expectations. Hope to hear comments and feedback of other member of discussion (here at EDK2, that is where the work will

By Rafael Machado <rafaelrodrigues.machado@...> · #137 ·

Re: [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address

[...] I thought it could be a register on the new CPU hotplug controller that we're going to need anyway (if I understand correctly, at least). But: Yes, that should work. In fact, I had

By Laszlo Ersek · #136 ·

Re: [RFC] Error reporting upon SecureBoot image validation failures?

A special case of your question is covered, at the moment, as follows ("give users an indication of the image validation failure"): - When a UEFI boot option is rejected due to secure boot

By Laszlo Ersek · #135 ·

[RFC] Error reporting upon SecureBoot image validation failures?

Hello, I have a question about user error reporting during SecureBoot image validation. From my testing with OVMF/Secureboot, when an image to be loaded fails validation (i.e. due to missing or

By Aaron Young · #134 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

I've posted this to the largest forum of blind visually impaired people I know of to date and have gotten some excellent feedback from them. I also provided in that post a link to this discussion.

By Ethin Probst · #133 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

Hi Ethin and all As Leif mentioned, my mastering thesys was the implementation of a reference code so a driver for audio at pre-OS would be possible, eliminating the first barrier for the creation of

By Rafael Machado <rafaelrodrigues.machado@...> · #132 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

Woops, I just realized while reading my message after I'd sent it that I had linked to the wrong document. The priority system is outlined over here (https://freebsoft.org/doc/speechd/ssip.html#Top).

By Ethin Probst · #131 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

While conquering refreshable braille displays would be nice, I think we should take it in stages. (Some blind people would want this in along with the accessibility subsystems, however I do not

By Ethin Probst · #130 ·

Re: UEFI accessibility mandate

Hi Ethin, Apologies for the delay in responding - I personally don't tend to read the RFC list (and I know that applies to some other developers who have now subscribed). So, first of all, I need to

By Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...> · #129 ·

Re: [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address

Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...> wrote: It looks like fwcfg smi feature negotiation isn't reusable in this case. I'd prefer not to add another device just for another SMI

By Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...> · #128 ·

Re: [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address

Sorry, there's a typo above: I pasted "smbase-blackhole" twice. The second instance was meant to be "smbase-window". I checked all instances of both regions in the info mtree output, I just fumbled

By Laszlo Ersek · #127 ·

Re: [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address

Hi Igor, Tying the [0x30000+128K) lockdown to the broadcast SMI negotiation is a simplification for QEMU, but it is a complication for OVMF. (This QEMU patch ties those things together in effect

By Laszlo Ersek · #126 ·

Re: UEFI terminal console keyboard type extend for Putty

By Gao, Zhichao · #125 ·

Re: UEFI terminal console keyboard type extend for Putty

By Gao, Zhichao · #124 ·

Re: UEFI terminal console keyboard type extend for Putty

Another specific question: What's the meaning of "F1 and F2 don't work in UEFI Shell"? That sounds like a bug in Terminal driver.

By Ni, Ray · #123 ·

Re: UEFI terminal console keyboard type extend for Putty

Zhichao, Can you please summarize what terminal types are supported by EDKII Terminal driver today and what you are going to add through this RFC? For the newly added terminal types, where is the

By Ni, Ray · #122 ·

Re: UEFI terminal console keyboard type extend for Putty

Liming, All the three types will be introduced. By the way, fix one typo 'F4' for VT400 map key should be 'ESC [ 1 4 ~'. Thanks, Zhichao Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 3:51 PM To: Gao, Zhichao

By Gao, Zhichao · #121 ·

661 - 680 of 800

Home Hashtags About Features Pricing Updates Terms Help Twitter