From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: arm: implement generic multiboot compatibility strings (Was: Re: [Linaro-uefi] The GRUB multiboot support patch for aarch64(V3.1)) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 17:36:48 +0100 Message-ID: <53909CA0.9010407@linaro.org> References: <536A1FCF.50207@linaro.org> <1401899819.15729.44.camel@hastur.hellion.org.uk> <5390205B.5060803@linaro.org> <1401969408.15729.52.camel@hastur.hellion.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1401969408.15729.52.camel@hastur.hellion.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Fu Wei Cc: linaro-uefi , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Ian, On 06/05/2014 12:56 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:46 +0800, Fu Wei wrote: >>> I can see why you did this (it's what Xen actually supports today) but I >>> wonder if in the interests of reducing the special cases I should create >>> a Xen patch which causes it to accept both names so that you can just >>> implement the "multiboot,*" stuff in common code without the special >>> cases? (Although that depends on the reason for the other non-compat >>> string special cases too) >> >> I think the "multiboot,*" stuff will be better, once Xen supports >> this, I will update this code. > > I've only compile tested this, but I *think* this does the right thing. > > Ian. > > 8<----------------- > > From d0acce53a086869420c2d8870d1a8a058013d6b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Ian Campbell > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 18:17:10 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] xen: arm: implement generic multiboot compatibility strings > > This causes Xen to accept the more generic names originally proposed by > Andre in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.linaro.announce.boot/326 and > incorporated into the proposal in > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_ARM_with_Virtualization_Extensions/Multiboot > > This will allow bootloaders to not special case Xen (or at least to reduce > the amount which is required). > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell > --- > xen/common/device_tree.c | 9 ++++++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/common/device_tree.c b/xen/common/device_tree.c > index f0b17a3..5040097 100644 > --- a/xen/common/device_tree.c > +++ b/xen/common/device_tree.c > @@ -338,9 +338,11 @@ static void __init process_multiboot_node(const void *fdt, int node, > struct dt_mb_module *mod; > int len; > > - if ( fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, node, "xen,linux-zimage") == 0 ) > + if ( fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, node, "xen,linux-zimage") == 0 || > + fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, node, "multiboot,linux-zimage") == 0 ) While we are modifying the protocol, "linux-zImage" is confusing in the name. Actually we can use it for an ELF, another OS... I don't think Xen will change his behavior depending of the DOM0 image. I would rename it to something more generic such as "multiboot,kernel". This will avoid adding a new compatible string every time we support a new format/OS. Regards, -- Julien Grall