From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Parth Dixit <parth.dixit@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 24/41] arm : acpi create efi node for DOM0
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:47:51 +0530
Message-ID: <CABy3MNkOKbA9JPJ3AMWSUP2WCAZW8sB9xC-3wgp4H1vK6+LbQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1431893048-5214-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
	<1431893048-5214-25-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org>
	<555CCF68020000780007C5EA@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<CABy3MNkVN-zK2U1im=br7R4jxSLq5Em7b7XMSRK3ob7NJMOYpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55644910020000780007DBDC@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <55644910020000780007DBDC@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: shannon.zhao@linaro.org
Cc: keir@xen.org, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

+shannon

On 26 May 2015 at 13:51, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24.05.15 at 08:30, <parth.dixit@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2015 at 21:46, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> On 17.05.15 at 22:03, <parth.dixit@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> > --- a/xen/include/xen/efi.h
>>> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/efi.h
>>> > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
>>> >  extern const bool_t efi_enabled;
>>> >
>>> >  #define EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR (~0UL)
>>> > -
>>> > +#define EFI_MEM_DESC_V1 1
>>> >  /* Add fields here only if they need to be referenced from non-EFI
>>> code. */
>>> >  struct efi {
>>> >      unsigned long mps;          /* MPS table */
>>> > @@ -20,6 +20,15 @@ struct efi {
>>> >
>>> >  extern struct efi efi;
>>> >
>>> > +struct efi_memory_desc {
>>> > +    u32 type;
>>> > +    u32 pad;
>>> > +    u64 phys_addr;
>>> > +    u64 virt_addr;
>>> > +    u64 num_pages;
>>> > +    u64 attribute;
>>> > +};
>>> > +
>>> >  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>> >
>>> >  union xenpf_efi_info;
>>>
>>> NAK - you're supposed to use what is already there, or give a good
>>> reason why redundant declarations are needed.
>>>
>>> I thought efi fields that need to be refreneced from non-efi code can be
>> added here.
>> Is this not correct?
>> Although i am rethinking about the design so that efi tables are extracted
>> in the common efi code and passed
>> to non efi code as it is done in case of device tree. I'll post rfc for
>> that would that be okay?
>
> At the first glance this would seem to be the right approach.
>
> Btw - please correct your reply style such that it is immediately clear
> which parts comprise your response and which parts are what you
> respond to (you have a misguiding > on the first line of your reply
> text here as well as in the reply to 02/41).
>
> Jan
>