linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: add EFI runtime services

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131209135158.GH24997@rocoto.smurfnet.nu>
Date:	Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:52:00 +0100
From:	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, matt.fleming@...el.com,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, roy.franz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: add EFI runtime services

Apologies for late feedback.

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:05:12PM -0500, Mark Salter wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1bad8a7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
> +/*
> + * Extensible Firmware Interface
> + *
> + * Based on Extensible Firmware Interface Specification version 2.3.1

Actually, for arm64, we're relying on UEFI 2.4 or later.

> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2013 Linaro Ltd.

And I'd say you've easily done enough here to motivate adding Red Hat.

> + *
> + * Adapted for arm64 from arch/arm/kernel/efi.c code
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/efi.h>
> +#include <linux/export.h>
> +#include <linux/memblock.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/bootmem.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> +#include <asm/efi.h>
> +#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> +#include <asm/mmu_context.h>
> +
> +#define efi_early_remap(a, b) \
> +	((__force void *)early_ioremap((a), (b)))

Do we not want early_memremap() here, rather than early_ioremap()?

/
    Leif
--
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/