From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Thorlton Subject: Re: efi_call on SGI Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20140611173233.GE3275@sgi.com> References: <20140609200017.GD2700@sgi.com> <20140610080300.GA28607@pd.tnic> <20140610204414.GB29302@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140610204414.GB29302-fF5Pk5pvG8Y@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Alex Thorlton , Linux EFI , LKML , Matt Fleming , Russ Anderson List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:44:14PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Btw, > > while we're at it, I see uv_bios_call is sometimes done with preemption > disabled around it and sometimes it is not (at least I don't see it)... > > In any case, if SGI uses the EFI pagetable now too, you probably would > want to do the efi calls like the rest of x86 does them - see the 64-bit > version of efi_call_virt() in arch/x86/include/asm/efi.h for an example > what I mean. > > Now, you could either copy that macro or you could accomodate it to > serve everyone's needs - depends on what you'd prefer. > > I'm just saying - I had stumbled across this while the debugging session > was going on and wanted to point that out but it wasn't too important at > the time so... Thanks, Boris. I'll take a look at that. I'm not sure why we would've chosen to do things differently there; wouldn't have been around for that, but I'll see if we can fix things up so that we're doing everything the way that everyone else is. - Alex