[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEEQ3w=495snOz3UNBO4dpgyfZs3jQoRKo4QRAXXqR5-0j4SWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 11:17:56 +0800
From: 运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
ron minnich <rminnich@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
lenb@...nel.org, jdelvare@...e.com, yc.hung@...iatek.com,
angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com,
allen-kh.cheng@...iatek.com, pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com,
tinghan.shen@...iatek.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] firmware: added a firmware information
passing method FFI
Hi Ard, Mark,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:52 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> and the only combination we do not support is ACPI without EFI, as
> ACPI on arm64 depends on the EFI memory map.
>
> What this patch seems to be proposing is a combination of all of
> these, i.e., doing a pseudo-EFI direct kernel boot where the EFI
> dependencies of ACPI are being fulfilled by ad-hoc descriptions passed
> in via DT.
>
> I am concerned that this will result in a maintenance burden for Linux
> with very little gain, so I feel we should not go down this road.
Judging from the current kernel, getting acpi smbios, memmap tables is
not just a way to have EFI, right?
smbios:SMBIOS_ENTRY_POINT_SCAN_START
acpi:CONFIG_ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP
memmap: e820
Our current situation is that coreboot does not support EFI, but supports fdt,
but we need to support ACPI, and riscv does not have a reserved
address segment
like x86 that can be used, so our current solution is to pass acpi and
other tables through fdt.
Based on this, do you have a better suggestion ?
Thanks,
Yunhui
Powered by blists - more mailing lists