From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] xen: Add EFI support Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:53:28 +0100 Message-ID: <537A28F8.4030707@citrix.com> References: <1400272904-31121-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1400272904-31121-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Daniel Kiper , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, xen-devel-GuqFBffKawtpuQazS67q72D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org Cc: boris.ostrovsky-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, eshelton-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, ian.campbell-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jbeulich-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org, jeremy-TSDbQ3PG+2Y@public.gmane.org, konrad.wilk-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org, stefano.stabellini-mvvWK6WmYclDPfheJLI6IQ@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 16/05/14 21:41, Daniel Kiper wrote: > Hey, > > This patch series adds EFI support for Xen dom0 guests. > It is based on Jan Beulich and Tang Liang work. I was > trying to take into account all previous comments, > however, if I missed something sorry for that. There needs to be a better description of this series. In particular, a description of why Xen PV guests are different and the overall design used. > I am still not sure what to do with /sys/firmware/efi/config_table, > /sys/firmware/efi/{fw_vendor,runtime,systab} files. On bare metal > they contain physical addresses of relevant structures. However, > in Xen case they does not make sens. So maybe they should contain > invalid values (e.g. 0) or should not appear at all on Xen (I prefer > last one). What do you think about that? Generally, dom0 has provided access to BIOS provided data structures. I think you should do the same here. They may be useful for diagnostics if nothing else. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754951AbaESPx6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 11:53:58 -0400 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:52828 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751935AbaESPx4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 11:53:56 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,868,1392163200"; d="scan'208";a="133190233" Message-ID: <537A28F8.4030707@citrix.com> Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:53:28 +0100 From: David Vrabel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Kiper , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] xen: Add EFI support References: <1400272904-31121-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <1400272904-31121-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.76] X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16/05/14 21:41, Daniel Kiper wrote: > Hey, > > This patch series adds EFI support for Xen dom0 guests. > It is based on Jan Beulich and Tang Liang work. I was > trying to take into account all previous comments, > however, if I missed something sorry for that. There needs to be a better description of this series. In particular, a description of why Xen PV guests are different and the overall design used. > I am still not sure what to do with /sys/firmware/efi/config_table, > /sys/firmware/efi/{fw_vendor,runtime,systab} files. On bare metal > they contain physical addresses of relevant structures. However, > in Xen case they does not make sens. So maybe they should contain > invalid values (e.g. 0) or should not appear at all on Xen (I prefer > last one). What do you think about that? Generally, dom0 has provided access to BIOS provided data structures. I think you should do the same here. They may be useful for diagnostics if nothing else. David