From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752289AbaEVH0O (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2014 03:26:14 -0400 Received: from arkanian.console-pimps.org ([212.110.184.194]:36580 "EHLO arkanian.console-pimps.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751803AbaEVH0M (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2014 03:26:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 08:26:01 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Daniel Kiper Cc: David Vrabel , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, eshelton@pobox.com, hpa@zytor.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com, jeremy@goop.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, matt.fleming@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] efi: Introduce EFI_DIRECT flag Message-ID: <20140522072601.GP4798@console-pimps.org> References: <1400272904-31121-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <1400272904-31121-2-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <537A2A28.4010903@citrix.com> <20140519210255.GC3529@olila.local.net-space.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140519210255.GC3529@olila.local.net-space.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 19 May, at 11:02:55PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > It is correct. As I said earlier: in case of !efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT) some > structures are created artificially and they live in virtual address space. > So that is why they should not be mapped. So, exploring Jan's idea, is it not possible to store the physical address and have early_ioremap() just work? Even if they're mapping in virtual address space they must have a corresponding physical address. We really need to be keeping these kinds of special code paths to a minimum. Unless absolutely necessary there should be just one way to do things. > I was going to have EFI_DIRECT close to EFI_BOOT which is quite generic > and platform independent name like EFI_BOOT. However, I do not insist > on having it in that place. Right, please don't shuffle these bits. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center