From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 18:06:55 +0100 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] efi/arm: map UEFI memory map earlier on boot Message-ID: <20180704170655.GD8370@arm.com> References: <20180619064424.6642-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <20180619064424.6642-4-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180619064424.6642-4-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: AKASHI Takahiro Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, graeme.gregory@linaro.org, al.stone@linaro.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, bhsharma@redhat.com, tbaicar@codeaurora.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dyoung@redhat.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi all, [Ard -- please can you look at the EFI parts of this patch] On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 03:44:23PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > Since arm_enter_runtime_services() was modified to always create a virtual > mapping of UEFI memory map in the previous patch, it is now renamed to > efi_enter_virtual_mode() and called earlier before acpi_load_tables() > in acpi_early_init(). > > This will allow us to use UEFI memory map in acpi_os_ioremap() to create > mappings of ACPI tables using memory attributes described in UEFI memory > map. > > See a relevant commit: > arm64: acpi: fix alignment fault in accessing ACPI tables > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel > Cc: Andrew Morton > --- > drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 15 ++++++--------- > init/main.c | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c > index 30ac5c82051e..566ef0a9edb5 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c > @@ -106,46 +106,43 @@ static bool __init efi_virtmap_init(void) > * non-early mapping of the UEFI system table and virtual mappings for all > * EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME regions. > */ > -static int __init arm_enable_runtime_services(void) > +void __init efi_enter_virtual_mode(void) > { > u64 mapsize; > > if (!efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)) { > pr_info("EFI services will not be available.\n"); > - return 0; > + return; > } > > mapsize = efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map; > > if (efi_memmap_init_late(efi.memmap.phys_map, mapsize)) { > pr_err("Failed to remap EFI memory map\n"); > - return 0; > + return; > } > > if (efi_runtime_disabled()) { > pr_info("EFI runtime services will be disabled.\n"); > - return 0; > + return; > } > > if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) { > pr_info("EFI runtime services access via paravirt.\n"); > - return 0; > + return; > } > > pr_info("Remapping and enabling EFI services.\n"); > > if (!efi_virtmap_init()) { > pr_err("UEFI virtual mapping missing or invalid -- runtime services will not be available\n"); > - return -ENOMEM; > + return; > } > > /* Set up runtime services function pointers */ > efi_native_runtime_setup(); > set_bit(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES, &efi.flags); > - > - return 0; > } > -early_initcall(arm_enable_runtime_services); > > void efi_virtmap_load(void) > { > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c > index 3b4ada11ed52..532fc0d02353 100644 > --- a/init/main.c > +++ b/init/main.c > @@ -694,6 +694,9 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init start_kernel(void) > debug_objects_mem_init(); > setup_per_cpu_pageset(); > numa_policy_init(); > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && > + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM))) > + efi_enter_virtual_mode(); Hmm, this is ugly as hell. Is there nothing else we can piggy-back off? It's also fairly jarring that, on x86, efi_enter_virtual_mode() is called a few lines later, *after* acpi_early_init() has been called. The rest of the series looks fine to me, but I'm not comfortable taking changes like this via the arm64 tree. Will _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec