[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57286BD0.2000809@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:13:52 +0800
From: Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@...wei.com>
To: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Xen Devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT) use
On 2016/4/30 22:14, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> I already proposed when this patch was first under review to make the
>> > arm_enable_runtime_services() function bail early without error if the
>> > EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag is already set, and the xen code could set
>> > that bit as well when it installs its paravirtualized alternatives. I
>> > don't remember exactly why that was shot down, though, but I think it
>> > is the only reason this code introduces references to EFI_PARAVIRT in
>> > the first place.
>> >
> Yes, in this patch we could set EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag in
> fdt_find_hyper_node instead of setting EFI_PARAVIRT flag, and then bail
> out early in arm_enable_runtime_services() as you said. Then call
> xen_efi_runtime_setup() in xen_guest_init().
Hi Ard,
If it sets EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag in fdt_find_hyper_node and in
arm_enable_runtime_services() it checks whether it's a Dom0 through
xen_init_domain() and the EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag is set, then call
xen_efi_runtime_setup(). Is it ok?
Thanks,
--
Shannon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists