[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140522072601.GP4798@console-pimps.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 08:26:01 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
eshelton@...ox.com, hpa@...or.com, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
jbeulich@...e.com, jeremy@...p.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
matt.fleming@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] efi: Introduce EFI_DIRECT flag
On Mon, 19 May, at 11:02:55PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
> It is correct. As I said earlier: 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.
So, exploring Jan's idea, is it not possible to store the physical
address and have early_ioremap() just work? Even if they're mapping in
virtual address space they must have a corresponding physical address.
We really need to be keeping these kinds of special code paths to a
minimum. Unless absolutely necessary there should be just one way to do
things.
> I was going to have EFI_DIRECT close to EFI_BOOT which is quite generic
> and platform independent name like EFI_BOOT. However, I do not insist
> on having it in that place.
Right, please don't shuffle these bits.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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