From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751976AbcEAN0Z (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2016 09:26:25 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:36229 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbcEAN0X (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2016 09:26:23 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 14:26:20 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Shannon Zhao Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Stefano Stabellini , Ingo Molnar , Stephen Rothwell , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Stefano Stabellini , Xen Devel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT) use Message-ID: <20160501132620.GT2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <20160429142020.4499e185@canb.auug.org.au> <20160429063936.GA28320@gmail.com> <20160429143931.GG2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> <5724BDD2.5020600@linaro.org> <20160430204420.GM2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> <572576E2.7060508@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <572576E2.7060508@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 01 May, at 11:24:18AM, Shannon Zhao wrote: > Because the UEFI params for Dom0 are located under /hypervisor/uefi node > instead of /chosen. So it needs to check whether it's a Dom0 then search > and parse different node with different params arrays. Why can't you search both nodes? Would you ever expect to see both for a Dom0 kernel? > So it still needs add another check to firstly parse the fdt to see if > there is "xen,uefi-system-table" under /hypervisor/uefi node, right? I > think it's a bit redundant compared with xen_initial_domain(). Sometimes you really do need to check xen_initial_domain(), but I do not think this is such a case. And if we can get by without adding that check, the code will be better for it.