[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140519204657.GB3529@olila.local.net-space.pl>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:46:57 +0200
From: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: david.vrabel@...rix.com, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com, jeremy@...p.org,
matt.fleming@...el.com, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, eshelton@...ox.com, mingo@...hat.com,
mjg59@...f.ucam.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] efi: Introduce EFI_DIRECT flag
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.05.14 at 22:41, <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
> > @@ -457,6 +460,21 @@ void __init efi_free_boot_services(void)
> > efi_unmap_memmap();
> > }
> >
> > +static void __init __iomem *efi_early_ioremap(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> > + unsigned long size)
> > +{
> > + if (efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT))
> > + return early_ioremap(phys_addr, size);
> > +
> > + return (__force void __iomem *)phys_addr;
>
> Now that surely needs some explanation: I can't see how this can
> ever be correct, Xen or not being completely irrelevant.
I hope that efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT) is obvious. However, in case of
!efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT) some structures are created artificially
and they live in virtual address space. So that is why they should
not be mapped. If you wish I could add relevant comment here.
Daniel
--
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