From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] arm64: add EFI runtime services Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:36:20 +0000 Message-ID: <20140318173616.GB20497@arm.com> References: <1394750828-16351-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <1394750828-16351-14-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140318123418.GH13200@arm.com> <1395152209.2967.3.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1395152209.2967.3.camel-PDpCo7skNiwAicBL8TP8PQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Salter Cc: Leif Lindholm , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "roy.franz-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:16:49PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:34 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:47:06PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > > [...] > > > +/* > > > + * Called from setup_arch with interrupts disabled. > > > + */ > > > +void __init efi_enter_virtual_mode(void) > > [...] > > > --- a/init/main.c > > > +++ b/init/main.c > > > @@ -902,6 +902,10 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void) > > > smp_prepare_cpus(setup_max_cpus); > > > > > > do_pre_smp_initcalls(); > > > + > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)) > > > + efi_enter_virtual_mode(); > > > > The comment for the efi_enter_virtual_mode() function says "called from > > setup_arch with interrupts disabled". None of these are true for the > > call above (and I would really prefer an arch call than this arm64 > > conditional call in init/main.c. > > > > Right, the call changed to later in boot but the comment didn't. Calling > from setup_arch is too early. But an early_initcall would work and would > get rid of the ugly CONFIG_ARM64 test. I agree, early_initcall() is better. -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:36:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 13/15] arm64: add EFI runtime services In-Reply-To: <1395152209.2967.3.camel@deneb.redhat.com> References: <1394750828-16351-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <1394750828-16351-14-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140318123418.GH13200@arm.com> <1395152209.2967.3.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20140318173616.GB20497@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:16:49PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:34 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:47:06PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > > [...] > > > +/* > > > + * Called from setup_arch with interrupts disabled. > > > + */ > > > +void __init efi_enter_virtual_mode(void) > > [...] > > > --- a/init/main.c > > > +++ b/init/main.c > > > @@ -902,6 +902,10 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void) > > > smp_prepare_cpus(setup_max_cpus); > > > > > > do_pre_smp_initcalls(); > > > + > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)) > > > + efi_enter_virtual_mode(); > > > > The comment for the efi_enter_virtual_mode() function says "called from > > setup_arch with interrupts disabled". None of these are true for the > > call above (and I would really prefer an arch call than this arm64 > > conditional call in init/main.c. > > > > Right, the call changed to later in boot but the comment didn't. Calling > from setup_arch is too early. But an early_initcall would work and would > get rid of the ugly CONFIG_ARM64 test. I agree, early_initcall() is better. -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932379AbaCRRhH (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:37:07 -0400 Received: from fw-tnat.austin.arm.com ([217.140.110.23]:28858 "EHLO collaborate-mta1.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932175AbaCRRhE (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:37:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:36:20 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Mark Salter Cc: Leif Lindholm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "matt.fleming@intel.com" , "roy.franz@linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] arm64: add EFI runtime services Message-ID: <20140318173616.GB20497@arm.com> References: <1394750828-16351-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <1394750828-16351-14-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140318123418.GH13200@arm.com> <1395152209.2967.3.camel@deneb.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1395152209.2967.3.camel@deneb.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:16:49PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:34 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:47:06PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > > [...] > > > +/* > > > + * Called from setup_arch with interrupts disabled. > > > + */ > > > +void __init efi_enter_virtual_mode(void) > > [...] > > > --- a/init/main.c > > > +++ b/init/main.c > > > @@ -902,6 +902,10 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void) > > > smp_prepare_cpus(setup_max_cpus); > > > > > > do_pre_smp_initcalls(); > > > + > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)) > > > + efi_enter_virtual_mode(); > > > > The comment for the efi_enter_virtual_mode() function says "called from > > setup_arch with interrupts disabled". None of these are true for the > > call above (and I would really prefer an arch call than this arm64 > > conditional call in init/main.c. > > > > Right, the call changed to later in boot but the comment didn't. Calling > from setup_arch is too early. But an early_initcall would work and would > get rid of the ugly CONFIG_ARM64 test. I agree, early_initcall() is better. -- Catalin