Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

Alex Thorlton
2016-05-16T22:58:40Z

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 01:06:00PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> (Adding author of arch_efi_call code)
>
> On Wed, 11 May, at 02:55:44PM, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> > We need a slightly different macro than the standard efi_call_virt,
> > since those macros all assume that the function pointer, f, that gets
> > passed in will live somewhere in efi.systab->runtime. Our EFI function
> > pointer lives in efi.uv_systab, so we can't use the standard macros out
> > of the box.
>
> Is that true of all EFI services pointers? From reading the SGI/UV
> code I got the impression that it's possible to call the standard
> services via efi.systab->runtime but you also need the ability to call
> these UV bios functions, which are not accessible via efi.systab.

No, sorry. I wasn't very clear there. All of the standard EFI services
(get_time, get_variable, etc.) are still called through
efi.systab->runtime on UV. It's only the special UV-specific function
pointer that is accessed through uv_systab, but, either way, we will
still need a slightly different macro to make that happen.

> Do you actually want the same environment setup and teardown to happen
> when calling efi.uv_systab ? Or are you simply trying to reuse the
> efi_call() implementation?

I was simply re-using the efi_call implementation. Boris suggested that
I re-write this using the efi_call_virt macro, so I just went with that.
It all seems to work just fine, so I don't see much reason to stray away
from that implementation. That being said, I'm obviously not a huge fun
of the code duplication across the macros. I think there's probably a
way to minimize this, though I haven't quite worked out the best method
yet (ideas are welcome :)

> > This commit creates some new uv_* macros that are functionally
> > equivalent to the standard ones, with the exception of allowing us to
> > use a different function pointer. I figure that we won't want to call
> > these uv_* in the end (we'll probably want something more generic), but
> > I thought I would get everyone's thoughts on how we might best reach
> > that goal instead of just trying to come up with a new implementation on
> > my own.
> >
> > By itself, this commit does get our machines booting, but it needs the
> > small fix to the efi_call assembly code for our modules to work.
>
> Could you provide some more details in the changelog on why your
> machine doesn't boot without this change?

Absolutely. I wasn't sure exactly how much detail was necessary. I'll
put a brief write-up of the original problem in the commit message for
the next version.

- Alex