[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6u43xOF2oVAF2yaO=ykLrQpgPPQTshjwxFdrA24VFYMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:35:53 +0100
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, matt.fleming@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm: Add [U]EFI runtime services support
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:54:17PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun, at 02:46:09PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > Eventually we'll need to look at how this interacts with kexec. A
>> > kexec'd kernel will need to use the mapping already chosen by a
>> > previous kernel, but that's an issue for another patch series.
>>
>> FYI, this is exactly what Borislav has been tackling on x86 recently. It
>> would be nice if we could find one scheme that suits everyone.
>
> Is this arm 32 or 64-bit? Because we haven't talked about 32-bit on x86
> either. From skimming over the code, I'm not sure the same top-down
> allocation and 1:1 mapping would work there. But I haven't looked hard
> yet so I dunno.
This is arm 32. We'll be looking at arm 64 next.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists