[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1604291634000.3312@sstabellini-ThinkPad-X260>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:37:09 +0100 (BST)
From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Xen Devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT) use
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr, at 11:34:45AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Also, it would be nice to have all things EFI in a single tree, the conflicts are
> > > > going to be painful! There's very little reason not to carry this kind of commit:
> > > >
> > > > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 6 +++++
> > > > drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 17 +++++++++-----
> > > > drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > in the EFI tree.
> > >
> > > That's true. I'll drop this commit from xentip and let Matt pick it up
> > > or request changes as he sees fit.
> >
> > One small change I think would be sensible to make is to expand
> > EFI_PARAVIRT into a few more bits to clearly indicate the quirks on
> > Xen, and in the process, to delete EFI_PARAVIRT.
> >
> > That should address Ingo's major concern, and also make it much easier
> > to rework the code in a piecemeal fashion.
> >
> > Could somebody enumerate the things that make Xen (dom0) different on
> > arm* compared with bare metal EFI boot? The list I made for x86 was,
> >
> > 1. Has no EFI memory map
> > 2. Runtime regions do not need to be mapped
> > 3. Cannot call SetVirtualAddressMap()
> > 4. /sys/firmware/efi/fw_vendor is invisible
> >
> > The first maps to not setting EFI_MEMMAP, the second to not setting
> > EFI_RUNTIME. If we add EFI_ALREADY_VIRTUAL and EFI_FW_VENDOR_INVISIBLE
> > to efi.flags that should cover everything on x86. Does arm* require
> > anything else?
>
> Xen on ARM is different, the impact should be limited:
>
> - there are no BootServices (ExitBootServices has already been called)
> - RuntimeServices go via hypercalls
>
> The UEFI memory map is still available at an address specified on device
> tree like on native, but the compatibility string is different
> ("xen,uefi-mmap-start") to clarify that we are booting on Xen rather
> than native.
>
> That's pretty much it, Shannon please confirm.
This is to say that Xen on ARM might only need EFI_RUNTIME.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists