[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160329160756.GG6745@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:07:57 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
stefano.stabellini@...rix.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, julien.grall@....com,
peter.huangpeng@...wei.com, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
zhaoshenglong@...wei.com, shannon.zhao@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 11/17] ARM: XEN: Move xen_early_init() before
efi_init()
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:54:09PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> are you OK with this patch?
Nothing against it, but the only arm64 bit is:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > index 450987d..6cf5051 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > @@ -313,6 +313,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> > */
> > local_async_enable();
> >
> > + xen_early_init();
> > efi_init();
> > arm64_memblock_init();
> >
> > @@ -334,7 +335,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> > } else {
> > psci_acpi_init();
> > }
> > - xen_early_init();
so it's difficult to care too much ;) I do hope that there won't be a
need to split up efi_init() in future because some of it has to happen
before xen_early_init, but that doesn't sound likely at the moment.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists