From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@calxeda.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@calxeda.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: Xen/ARM multiboot (v2) support
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:35:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <519F88DD.2040705@calxeda.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1369384617.17830.95.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
On 05/24/2013 10:36 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Ian,
>> can we push multiboot v2 support for Xen/ARM still into 4.3?
>
> I'm OK with it in principal, since it sounds like it should be rather
> unobtrusive.
>
>> It looks like it can coexists with zImage in the same binary - the
>> multiboot structure can be put just behind the zImage header and the
>> code can determine how it has been started: zImage bootloaders clears
>> r0, multiboot one's would set r0 to the MB magic.
>> I will sketch a patch tomorrow, just wondering if we can have this in
>> 4.3 to have a sane booting protocol from the very beginning.
>
> My main concern is that AFAIK multiboot2 on ARM is not well (at all?)
> defined
Actually I did not find any ARM extension so far, aside from one
hobbyist project, as it seems. So basically we would set the rules here.
The actual machine dependent interface is rather simple, for x86 for
instance:
eax: multiboot magic, ebx: pointer to multiboot structure, and some
definitions like MMU off and protected mode.
Translated to ARM that would mean:
r0: multiboot magic, r1: pointer to multiboot structure, r2: dtb pointer
(optional, could well be a tag in the multiboot structure).
The rest are the standard requirements we have when entering Xen or the
Linux kernel.
So I would not expect many problems from this (famous last words ;-)
> so we may (lets face it: probably will, Murphy's law and all)
> end up with 4.3.0 having something which isn't actually multiboot baked
> into it. However I would support backporting an incremental fix to
> implement the final protocol into 4.3.x so that's probably ok.
That sounds fine. I am OK with having it in Xen 4.3.1, I just don't want
to wait for 4.4.
Thanks,
Andre.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-24 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-23 22:38 Xen/ARM multiboot (v2) support Andre Przywara
2013-05-24 8:36 ` Ian Campbell
2013-05-24 15:35 ` Andre Przywara [this message]
2013-05-24 15:46 ` Ian Campbell
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=519F88DD.2040705@calxeda.com \
--to=andre.przywara@calxeda.com \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/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.