All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com,
	steiner@sgi.com, travis@sgi.com, hpa@zytor.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86 boot: allow overlapping ebda and efi memmap memory ranges
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:53:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1213606435.12968.14.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080616032457.718f4d87.pj@sgi.com>

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 03:24 -0500, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Huang wrote:
> >  I think it is better to change boot loader to avoid memory area of EBDA.
> 
> Would this require the bootloader to know the kernels rather arbitrary
> heuristics for inventing and placing an EBDA area, in reserve_ebda_region()?

I think it is sufficient for boot loader to avoid memory area from
0x9f000 to 0x100000. This can be seen as compatible code for legacy
BIOS.

> In general, I would think it better not to have to code into the EFI
> firmware or bootloader such knowledge.  But perhaps I am wrong here.
> 
> If the kernel is going to reserve an EBDA region even if no EBDA is
> requested by the BIOS, then I would think that the kernel should be
> more tolerant of BIOS's that put something else in that place.
> 
> > Or do not reserve EBDA on EFI system.
> 
> I suppose.  This would have been a bigger change than I could
> suggest.  For all I know, there are existing systems using EBDA
> and EFI together.  Would this change break them?
> 
> If you have good reason to know that's essentially impossible then
> I have no objections, so far as my needs go, to not reserving EBDA
> on EFI systems.

I think if EBDA area is used in EFI system, it should be reserved in EFI
memory map.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


  reply	other threads:[~2008-06-16  8:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-06-16  6:29 [PATCH 1/8] x86 boot: x86_64 build reserve_bootmem_generic fix Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:29 ` [PATCH 2/8] x86 boot: e820 code indentation fix Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:29 ` [PATCH 3/8] x86 boot: x86_64 efi compiler warning fix Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 4/8] x86 boot: allow overlapping ebda and efi memmap memory ranges Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:54   ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  7:32     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:34       ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  8:31         ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:07   ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  8:24     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  8:53       ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2008-06-16  9:09         ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  9:14           ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16 15:48         ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 16:38           ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16 17:05             ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 17:37               ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16 17:41                 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16 18:09                   ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16 18:18                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 18:53                       ` Alan Cox
2008-06-16 19:58                         ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 17:46                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 18:05                   ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-17  1:00                     ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 5/8] x86 boot: remap efi systab runtime from phys to virt Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:02   ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  8:06     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  8:27       ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  8:26         ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 6/8] x86 boot: virtualize the efi runtime function callback addresses Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 7/8] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not decimal in some kernel info printks Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:05   ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  8:09     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 8/8] x86 boot: more consistently use type int for node ids Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:50 ` [PATCH 1/8] x86 boot: x86_64 build reserve_bootmem_generic fix Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  8:40   ` Paul Jackson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1213606435.12968.14.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com \
    --to=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=pj@sgi.com \
    --cc=steiner@sgi.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=travis@sgi.com \
    --cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.