From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7893E2740 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 15:20:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773933644; cv=none; b=SYLwZ4MWJTxPOqb+HWOHC7AMQqxP6ocg4XTZQJM8dF1wyHQwM+k4xZlIUYgxrMZO2vFSrKc8E8mccpPQSPqEHj+zKXIB8nvaXV0xbBmRaCE0w+Lg77Cx2fk5FqG5WuXt2MEFce3dafXJADYJPJqeeYuBOI7rDup0c7DkDcui9mE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773933644; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OwgWNwuqPFxUg7+dzX7DZnorsa23LOlHczwFd1Nf1ww=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WTXa7JZJz+DY31b/WCstQS6kQ2BPKVO1qje2xob1Ra8Cw+lxb5vEYxnYOVKnD67+M1+7GhCrgcNglrQ8GytRedC+78mtOyF9lcJn5riARW4C41mMKd0Vqw684xbJfG4E2D/zeYkew1nMtfSkHOCHDQYJX2xDb7DMhHyanlZaAHE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=aA6npBLr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="aA6npBLr" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=OwgWNwuqPFxUg7+dzX7DZnorsa23LOlHczwFd1Nf1ww=; b=aA6npBLrX9UBbGwEkoA46cwmYd aoWCb5LXwbZrWnVZZTuRMOf7i6uDKHj8vcleWqlYpr373wmO/H13d9gAfpc2frkTZZZ/gSwOnqQn+ gJEnQZoGfAR64JCaS7Nw0ike8jKcqMwWa0+0yUTuNoCw+OuthUBGf6/xAs4WszszhwG/QBZJea0Wj pKRixTfHrkZIWXUlYhQ6DWdAeaeBy9Gz1EJ/D75uRRqYO0yBV9mNdg8CojyNblQUI7z1CDpM0huGq VW+4VEL3oACJZ+E1GsFK+1AIdU35H1endgEqFqGSN5EIumnDu/tEQLZBfLt2PlUXMfHF0oLVbO+iP xeOuep5A==; Received: from authenticated user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1w3FAn-004WKu-Jq; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 15:20:32 +0000 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 08:20:27 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Masami Hiramatsu , oss@malat.biz Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, paulmck@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: arm64: pseudo NMI bootconfig question Message-ID: References: <20251113133403.308046d2df1c97ba7dcd2388@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Debian-User: leitao hello Masami, On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 02:37:22AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:34:03PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > Another possible solution would be to load bootconfig earlier in the > boot process so that early parameters can be defined within bootconfig. > Petr suggested this approach some time back, but it doesn't appear to > have made it upstream. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231123194106.08f5832f558fe806b1fd8098@kernel.org/ > > I'm not fully up to speed on the details of this change, so I want to > ask directly: Would Petr's approach—allowing early parameters to be set > via bootconfig make sense from a bootconfig design perspective? Would it be worthwhile for me to take Petr's patch, update it to the current codebase, address any issues, and verify that it resolves the problem described above? If so, would you be open to reviewing and potentially accepting such a patch? Thanks, --breno