From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:07:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v7 11/17] ARM: XEN: Move xen_early_init() before efi_init() In-Reply-To: References: <1458830676-27075-1-git-send-email-shannon.zhao@linaro.org> <1458830676-27075-12-git-send-email-shannon.zhao@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20160329160756.GG6745@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:54:09PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > are you OK with this patch? Nothing against it, but the only arm64 bit is: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index 450987d..6cf5051 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -313,6 +313,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) > > */ > > local_async_enable(); > > > > + xen_early_init(); > > efi_init(); > > arm64_memblock_init(); > > > > @@ -334,7 +335,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) > > } else { > > psci_acpi_init(); > > } > > - xen_early_init(); so it's difficult to care too much ;) I do hope that there won't be a need to split up efi_init() in future because some of it has to happen before xen_early_init, but that doesn't sound likely at the moment. Will