From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754597AbaHGB0O (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 21:26:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65122 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753927AbaHGB0M (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 21:26:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:27:09 +0800 From: Dave Young To: Matt Fleming Cc: Leif Lindholm , catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, matt.fleming@intel.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, msalter@redhat.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] UEFI arm64: add noefi boot param Message-ID: <20140807012708.GA20295@darkstar.nay.redhat.com> References: <20140806083825.GA31711@dhcp-16-198.nay.redhat.com> <20140806130623.GI4179@bivouac.eciton.net> <20140806132021.GB15082@console-pimps.org> <20140806132941.GJ4179@bivouac.eciton.net> <20140806140155.GC15082@console-pimps.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140806140155.GC15082@console-pimps.org> 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 08/06/14 at 03:01pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 06 Aug, at 02:29:41PM, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:20:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > Since this is really turning an x86-specific feature into a generic > > > > one, could it be moved to core code? > > > > Maybe an efi.mask, reusing the efi_enabled defines, with an > > > > efi_disabled macro? > > > > > > Why the new efi_disabled() and efi.mask? This is all achievable with > > > efi_enabled() and efi.flags, in fact, this kind of thing is exactly why > > > they were invented. > > > > Because this flag is indicating which facilities we should not try to > > enable, rather than which facilities we have enabled. > > > > The EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag is set after successful call to > > set_virtual_address_map. The apparent intent of "noefi" is to prevent > > that call from being made in the first place. > > > > Anyway, it was just a suggestion - main point was it would make sense > > to share the code. > > Definitely. > > Dave, below is the kind of thing that I had in mind. Please Cc the Xen > and SGI folks when you submit your next version because they're likely > to be hit the hardest by any changes to EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES and > "noefi". > > Obviously the addition of "efi=noruntime" is needed on top, but that's > about 6 lines of code. [snip] Matt, will file a new version based on your code. I will also address the failure case in enter virtual mode. Currently in x86, there's cases such as efi_map_regions failure and efi call set_virtual_address_map, in case those failures it should be better to unset the EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES in efi.flags instead of do noting or panic. As for Xen and SGI people? I have not been following all the efi threads so I'm not sure who exactly I should cc, could you tell me? Thanks Dave