From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zhang, Jonathan Zhixiong" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] efi: arch, x86: arch, ia64: move efi_mem_attributes() Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 09:44:24 -0700 Message-ID: <5571D1E8.7040709@codeaurora.org> References: <1433185940-24770-1-git-send-email-zjzhang@codeaurora.org> <1433185940-24770-2-git-send-email-zjzhang@codeaurora.org> <20150602133647.GC6826@codeblueprint.co.uk> <556E45AA.9050802@codeaurora.org> <20150605092317.GE6826@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150605092317.GE6826@codeblueprint.co.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: Matt Fleming , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, leif.lindholm@linaro.org, al.stone@linaro.org, fu.wei@linaro.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, vgandhi@codeaurora.org, Tony Luck List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Sure, I will got with B with clear comment. Thanks, Jonathan On 6/5/2015 2:23 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 02 Jun, at 05:09:14PM, Zhang, Jonathan Zhixiong wrote: >> Thank you for the feedback, Matt. >> >> Given that IA64 does not set EFI_MEMMAP, it appears to me there >> are following options: >> A. Keep status quota and copy x86's efi_mem_attributes() code >> to arm64. > > Let's avoid this option. > >> B. In efi subsystem, provide week default efi_mem_attributes(). >> In the mean time, IA64 continues to have its own implementation. > > While I'm not a huge fan of using __weak this makes the most sense to me > because the alternative is to rename either the ia64 or x86 > implementation and that just seems silly. > >> C. Add EFI_MEMMAP support (and related bits) in IA64. > > C. isn't an option because the ia64 memory map doesn't work the same way > as x86 and arm64. > >> Which option do you prefer? Once there is a consensus, I am >> willing to submit patch accordingly for review. > > Let's go with B. but please provide a comment above the weak > implementation explaining *why* it's declared as weak and that any new > architecture probably doesn't want to override it. Explain that the ia64 > EFI memory map is special. > -- Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project