From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt templates
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:42:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160421114256.GP2904@bivouac.eciton.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1461238529-12810-2-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:35:25PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Currently each architecture must implement two macros, efi_call_virt and
> __efi_call_virt, which only differ by the presence or absence of a
> return type. Otherwise, the logic surrounding the call is identical.
>
> As each architecture must define the entire body of each, we can't place
> any generic manipulation (e.g. irq flag validation) in the middle.
>
> This patch adds template implementations of these macros. With these,
> arch code can implement three template macros, avoiding reptition for
> the void/non-void return cases:
>
> * arch_efi_call_virt_setup
>
> Sets up the environment for the call (e.g. switching page tables,
> allowing kernel-mode use of floating point, if required).
>
> * arch_efi_call_virt
>
> Performs the call. The last expression in the macro must be the call
> itself, allowing the logic to be shared by the void and non-void
> cases.
>
> * arch_efi_call_virt_teardown
>
> Restores the usual kernel environment once the call has returned.
>
> While the savings from repition are minimal, we additionally gain the
> ability to add common code around the call with the call enviroment set
> up. This can be used to detect common firmware issues (e.g. bad irq mask
> management).
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c
> index de69530..1b9fa54 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,27 @@
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #include <asm/efi.h>
>
> +
> +#ifndef efi_call_virt
So ... not a strong complaint, but I would prefer if these weren't
ifdefd. I presume this is because ia64?
Could that be given a dummy pass-through version instead? If not,
could a comment be added that this is to retain compatibility with
ia64 (so that if that architecture was to mysteriously disappear from
the tree, someone might remember to deconditionalise it)?
> +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> +({ \
> + efi_status_t __s; \
> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> + __s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> + __s; \
> +})
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef __efi_call_virt
> +#define __efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> +({ \
> + arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> + arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> + arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> +})
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
> * reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
> --
> 1.9.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-21 11:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1461238529-12810-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
2016-04-21 11:35 ` [PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt templates Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 11:42 ` Leif Lindholm [this message]
2016-04-21 12:55 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 14:19 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 11:35 ` [PATCHv2 2/5] arm64/efi: move to generic {__,}efi_call_virt Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 16:48 ` Will Deacon
2016-04-21 16:58 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 11:35 ` [PATCHv2 3/5] arm/efi: " Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 11:35 ` [PATCHv2 4/5] x86/efi: " Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 11:35 ` [PATCHv2 5/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 17:05 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-21 17:18 ` Mark Rutland
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=20160421114256.GP2904@bivouac.eciton.net \
--to=leif.lindholm@linaro.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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