public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com,
	steiner@sgi.com, travis@sgi.com, hpa@zytor.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86 boot: allow overlapping ebda and efi memmap memory ranges
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:53:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1213606435.12968.14.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080616032457.718f4d87.pj@sgi.com>

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 03:24 -0500, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Huang wrote:
> >  I think it is better to change boot loader to avoid memory area of EBDA.
> 
> Would this require the bootloader to know the kernels rather arbitrary
> heuristics for inventing and placing an EBDA area, in reserve_ebda_region()?

I think it is sufficient for boot loader to avoid memory area from
0x9f000 to 0x100000. This can be seen as compatible code for legacy
BIOS.

> In general, I would think it better not to have to code into the EFI
> firmware or bootloader such knowledge.  But perhaps I am wrong here.
> 
> If the kernel is going to reserve an EBDA region even if no EBDA is
> requested by the BIOS, then I would think that the kernel should be
> more tolerant of BIOS's that put something else in that place.
> 
> > Or do not reserve EBDA on EFI system.
> 
> I suppose.  This would have been a bigger change than I could
> suggest.  For all I know, there are existing systems using EBDA
> and EFI together.  Would this change break them?
> 
> If you have good reason to know that's essentially impossible then
> I have no objections, so far as my needs go, to not reserving EBDA
> on EFI systems.

I think if EBDA area is used in EFI system, it should be reserved in EFI
memory map.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


  reply	other threads:[~2008-06-16  8:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-06-16  6:29 [PATCH 1/8] x86 boot: x86_64 build reserve_bootmem_generic fix Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:29 ` [PATCH 2/8] x86 boot: e820 code indentation fix Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:29 ` [PATCH 3/8] x86 boot: x86_64 efi compiler warning fix Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 4/8] x86 boot: allow overlapping ebda and efi memmap memory ranges Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:54   ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  7:32     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:34       ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  8:31         ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:07   ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  8:24     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  8:53       ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2008-06-16  9:09         ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  9:14           ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16 15:48         ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 16:38           ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16 17:05             ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 17:37               ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16 17:41                 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16 18:09                   ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16 18:18                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 18:53                       ` Alan Cox
2008-06-16 19:58                         ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 17:46                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-06-16 18:05                   ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-17  1:00                     ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 5/8] x86 boot: remap efi systab runtime from phys to virt Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:02   ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  8:06     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  8:27       ` Huang, Ying
2008-06-16  8:26         ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 6/8] x86 boot: virtualize the efi runtime function callback addresses Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 7/8] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not decimal in some kernel info printks Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  7:05   ` Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  8:09     ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:30 ` [PATCH 8/8] x86 boot: more consistently use type int for node ids Paul Jackson
2008-06-16  6:50 ` [PATCH 1/8] x86 boot: x86_64 build reserve_bootmem_generic fix Yinghai Lu
2008-06-16  8:40   ` Paul Jackson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1213606435.12968.14.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com \
    --to=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=pj@sgi.com \
    --cc=steiner@sgi.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=travis@sgi.com \
    --cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox