On 5 July 2018 at 18:48, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 12:02:15PM +0100, James Morse wrote: >> On 05/07/18 10:43, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 08:49:32PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> On 4 July 2018 at 19:06, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 03:44:23PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> >>>> Since arm_enter_runtime_services() was modified to always create a virtual >> >>>> mapping of UEFI memory map in the previous patch, it is now renamed to >> >>>> efi_enter_virtual_mode() and called earlier before acpi_load_tables() >> >>>> in acpi_early_init(). >> >>>> >> >>>> This will allow us to use UEFI memory map in acpi_os_ioremap() to create >> >>>> mappings of ACPI tables using memory attributes described in UEFI memory >> >>>> map. >> >> >>> Hmm, this is ugly as hell. Is there nothing else we can piggy-back off? >> >>> It's also fairly jarring that, on x86, efi_enter_virtual_mode() is called >> >>> a few lines later, *after* acpi_early_init() has been called. >> >> >> Currently, there is a gap where we have already torn down the early >> >> mapping and haven't created the definitive mapping of the UEFI memory >> >> map. There are other reasons why this is an issue, and I recently >> >> proposed [0] myself to address one of them >> >> >> Akashi-san, could you please confirm whether the patch below would be >> >> sufficient for you? Apologies for going back and forth on this, but I >> >> agree with Will that we should try to avoid warts like the one above >> >> in generic code. >> >> >> >> [0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-efi&m=152930773507524&w=2 >> > >> > I think that this patch will also work. >> > Please drop my patch#2 and #3 if you want to pick up my patchset, Will. >> >> Patch 2 is what changes arm_enable_runtime_services() to map the efi memory map >> before bailing out due to efi=noruntime. >> >> Without it, 'efi=noruntime' means no-acpi-tables. > > So it sounds like we want patch 2. Akashi, given that this series is only > four patches, please can you send out a v3 with the stuff that should be > reviewed and merged? Otherwise, there's a real risk we end up with breakage > that goes unnoticed initially. > Yes, we want patches #1, #2 and #4, and this one can be replaced with my patch above. Everything can be taken via the arm64 tree as far as I am concerned. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
