[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131205120322.3479CC407BC@trevor.secretlab.ca>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:03:22 +0000
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk
Cc: matt.fleming@...el.com, roy.franz@...aro.org, msalter@...hat.com,
patches@...aro.org, linaro-uefi@...aro.org, mark.rutland@....com,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] init: efi: arm: enable (U)EFI runtime services on arm
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:41:23 +0000, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org> wrote:
> Since the efi_set_virtual_address_map call has strict init ordering
> requirements, add an explicit hook in the required place.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
> ---
> init/main.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index febc511..1331829 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void)
> smp_prepare_cpus(setup_max_cpus);
>
> do_pre_smp_initcalls();
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM) && efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT))
> + efi_enter_virtual_mode();
> +
Personally, I would put the IS_ENABLED() and efi_enabled() tests into
efi_enter_virtual_mode() itself (or an empty stub for the !IS_ENABLED()
case), but that is mostly a nit.
Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
> lockup_detector_init();
>
> smp_init();
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
--
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