[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130925054703.GA12962@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:47:03 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] EFI: Runtime services virtual mapping
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 05:12:26PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I am starting to think that we really should explicitly pass along the
> EFI mappings to the secondary kernel. This will also help if we have to
> change the algorithm in a future kernel.
That would be the most flexible solution, sure.
> The most logical way to do this is to define a new setup_data type and
> pass the entire set of physical-to-virtual mappings that way.
>
> For example:
>
> struct efi_mapping {
> u64 va; /* Virtual start address */
> u64 pa; /* Physical start address */
> u64 len; /* Length in bytes */
> u64 type; /* Mapping type */
> u64 reserved[3]; /* Reserved, must be zero */
> };
>
> Adding some reserved fields seems like a prudent precaution;
... and making checking they're zeroed out initially so that I can use
them in the future, if needed :)
> the map shouldn't be all that large anyway.
Yeah, let me look at it in more detail when I get back - it shouldn't be
that hard to do.
Thanks.
--
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