[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161217105721.GB6922@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 18:57:21 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] firmware: dmi_scan: Pass dmi_entry_point to
kexec'ed kernel
Ccing efi people.
On 12/16/16 at 02:33pm, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:18:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 10:32 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > On 12/15/16 at 12:28pm, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > I am no kexec expert but this confuses me. Shouldn't the second
> > > > kernel have access to the EFI systab as the first kernel does? It
> > > > includes many more pointers than just ACPI and DMI tables, and it
> > > > would seem inconvenient to have to pass all these addresses
> > > > individually explicitly.
> > >
> > > Yes, in modern linux kernel, kexec has the support for EFI, I think it
> > > should work naturally at least in x86_64.
> >
> > Thanks for this good news!
> >
> > Unfortunately Intel Galileo is 32-bit platform.
>
> If it was done for X86_64 then maybe it can be generalized to X86?
For X86_64, we have a new way for efi runtime memmory mapping, in i386
code it still use old ioremap way. It is impossible to use same way as
the X86_64 since the virtual address space is limited.
But maybe for 32bit, kexec kernel can run in physical mode, but I'm not
sure, I would suggest Andy to do a test first with efi=noruntime for
kexec 2nd kernel.
Thanks
Dave
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
Powered by blists - more mailing lists