lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT) use
On Fri, 29 Apr, at 11:34:45AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Also, it would be nice to have all things EFI in a single tree, the conflicts are
> > going to be painful! There's very little reason not to carry this kind of commit:
> >
> > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 6 +++++
> > drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 17 +++++++++-----
> > drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > in the EFI tree.
>
> That's true. I'll drop this commit from xentip and let Matt pick it up
> or request changes as he sees fit.

One small change I think would be sensible to make is to expand
EFI_PARAVIRT into a few more bits to clearly indicate the quirks on
Xen, and in the process, to delete EFI_PARAVIRT.

That should address Ingo's major concern, and also make it much easier
to rework the code in a piecemeal fashion.

Could somebody enumerate the things that make Xen (dom0) different on
arm* compared with bare metal EFI boot? The list I made for x86 was,

1. Has no EFI memory map
2. Runtime regions do not need to be mapped
3. Cannot call SetVirtualAddressMap()
4. /sys/firmware/efi/fw_vendor is invisible

The first maps to not setting EFI_MEMMAP, the second to not setting
EFI_RUNTIME. If we add EFI_ALREADY_VIRTUAL and EFI_FW_VENDOR_INVISIBLE
to efi.flags that should cover everything on x86. Does arm* require
anything else?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-29 17:01    [W:0.204 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site