From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 33/35] arm : acpi enable efi for acpi
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:57:49 +0800
Message-ID: <54DB279D.1010901@linaro.org>
References: <1423058539-26403-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>	
	<1423058539-26403-34-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>	
	<54D3003B.5070402@linaro.org>	
	<54D368F4020000780005D3F0@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<1423137947.24924.92.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1423137947.24924.92.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, parth.dixit@linaro.org, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Ian,

On 05/02/2015 20:05, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 11:58 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 05.02.15 at 06:31, <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/common/efi/runtime.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/efi/runtime.c
>>>> @@ -11,7 +11,13 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(CHAR16);
>>>>    #ifndef COMPAT
>>>>
>>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_ARM  /* Disabled until runtime services implemented */
>>>
>>> This comment seems irrelevant now.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_64) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI)
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>
>> This is common code, and I can't see ACPI and EFI being always in the
>> same supported state (or else we could drop one of the two).
>
> EFI without ACPI is certainly a possibility on ARM64.

We would need to defined a new protocol in order to boot ACPI without EFI.

Currently the ACPI fetch the rsdp pointer in 2 differents way depending 
of efi_enabled:
	* efi_enabled == 1 => Use EFI to get the pointer
	* efi_enabled == 0 => Use the x86 legacy mode

On ARM64, we have to use the first one. Maybe we should refactor 
acpi_os_get_root_pointer?

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall