[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aI7gBld/+yKQ2EXM@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 12:05:26 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Brian Mak <makb@...iper.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/kexec: Carry forward the boot DTB on kexec
On 08/01/25 at 07:24pm, Brian Mak wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2025, at 8:02 PM, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 07/29/25 at 11:21am, Brian Mak wrote:
> >> The kexec_file_load syscall on x86 currently does not support passing
> >> a device tree blob to the new kernel.
> >>
> >> To add support for this, we copy the behavior of ARM64 and PowerPC and
> >> copy the current boot's device tree blob for use in the new kernel. We
> >> do this on x86 by passing the device tree blob as a setup_data entry in
> >> accordance with the x86 boot protocol.
> >
> > I see how, but no why. Why do we need to add DTB for x86?
>
> Hi Baoquan,
>
> Thanks for your comment. Some embedded x86 systems, such as ours at
> Juniper, use device trees. Currently, the x86 kexec_file_load syscall
> has no support for passing the device tree to the new kernel, which is a
> problem for us since we use kexec for some software upgrade related
> features. Not passing a device tree to the new kernel would cause a boot
> failure here.
Thanks for the info. Please add these into patch log to let reviewers
know them. We don't add code w/o objective.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists