linux-kernel - Re: [External] [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: obtain ACPI RSDP from FFI.

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-Id: <50F3BD62-78F1-456E-A44A-0C7D9A2D4113@jrtc27.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2023 22:32:53 +0100
From:   Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>
To:     Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@...il.com>
Cc:     运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        rminnich@...il.com, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <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 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, geshijian@...edance.com,
        weidong.wd@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: obtain ACPI RSDP from FFI.

On 3 Jul 2023, at 19:58, Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 15:33, 运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@...edance.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi drew,
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:01 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (This is a reply to a non-existent cover letter.)
>> 
>> This has been discussed many times with Ard, Please refer to :
>> https://patches.linaro.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/20230426034001.16-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com/
> 
> Hi Yunhui,
> 
> From that discussion it was mentioned that that arm supports 3 methods
> of booting:
>  direct + devicetree
>  EFI + devicetree
>  EFI + ACPI
> ..but not
>  direct + ACPI
> 
> To me it isn't obvious from that or this thread, and since arm seems
> to be doing fine without the 4th option I'm curious why that's
> necessary on riscv?

If anything we should be removing option 1, because that’s not a
cross-OS standard (though RISC-V’s SBI direct booting is at least not
tied to the OS). Any application-class platform spec is going to
mandate EFI, because, whatever your thoughts of EFI are, that is *the*
standard. And if you’re willing to pick up all the complexity of ACPI,
what’s a bit of EFI (especially if you only go for a minimal one a la
U-Boot)?

Jess

>>> I'm not a big fan of adding yet another interface. Have you considered
>>> doing something like [1]?
>>> 
>>> [1] https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/UefiPayloadPkg
> 
> Also you didn't answer this question, which I'd also like to hear a reply to.
> 
> /Emil
> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> drew
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Yunhui
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-riscv mailing list
>> linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives