From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:38:01 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: arm: [U]EFI runtime services In-Reply-To: <20130627090050.GC18151@rocoto.smurfnet.nu> References: <1372183863-11333-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <1372183863-11333-2-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <51CA2B03.4080106@wwwdotorg.org> <20130626135311.GA9078@rocoto.smurfnet.nu> <20130626135933.GQ22026@console-pimps.org> <1372257499.2168.5.camel@dabdike> <20130627013219.GA346@srcf.ucam.org> <20130627090050.GC18151@rocoto.smurfnet.nu> Message-ID: <20130627143801.GB12900@srcf.ucam.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:00:50AM +0200, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:32:19AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > We can probably get away with that now, but it does risk us ending up > > with some firmware that expects to run in physical mode (boards designed > > for Linux) and some firmware that expects to run in virtual mode (boards > > designed for Windows). The degree of lockdown in the Windows ecosystem > > at present means it's not a real problem at the moment, but if that ever > > changes we're going to risk incompatibility. > > Is there anything preventing calling SetVirtualAddressMap() with a > 1:1 map? No, but we've seen bugs as a result on some x86 systems. As far as the spec, though, you're fine. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org