On 7 February 2015 at 03:36, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2015年02月06日 18:34, G Gregory wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> linux,uefi-stub-kern-ver | string | Copy of linux_banner from
>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> +linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb | bool | Indication for no DTB
>>>>>> provided by
>>>>>> + | | firmware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies for the late bikeshedding, but the discussion on this topic
>>>>> previsously was lively enough that I thought I'd let it die down a bit
>>>>> before seeing if I had anything to add.
>>>>>
>>>>> That, and I just realised something:
>>>>> One alternative to this added DT entry is that we could treat the
>>>>> absence of a registered UEFI configuration table as the indication
>>>>> that no HW description was provided from firmware, since the stub does
>>>>> not call InstallConfigurationTable() on the DT it generates. This does
>>>>> move the ability to detect to after efi_init(), but this should be
>>>>> fine for ACPI-purposes.
>>>>>
>>>> That would not work as expected in the kexec/Xen use case though as they
>>>> may genuinely boot with DT from an ACPI host without UEFI.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm a little concerned by this case. How do we intend to pass stuff from
>>> Xen to the kernel in this case? When we initially discussed the stub
>>> prior to merging, we weren't quite sure if ACPI without UEFI was
>>> entirely safe.
>>>
>>> The linux,uefi-stub-kern-ver property was originally intended as a
>>> sanity-check feature to ensure nothing (including Xen) masqueraded as
>>> the stub, but for some reason the actual sanity check was never
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>>>> If that is deemed undesirable, I would still prefer Catalin's
>>>>> suggested name ("linux,bare-dtb"), which describes the state rather
>>>>> than the route we took to get there.
>>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess this would be ok, though it would be nice to know which agent
>>> generated the DTB.
>>>
>>
>> The most obvious scheme then is
>>
>> linux,bare-dtb = "uefi-stub";
>>
>> otherwise we generate a new binding for every component in the boot path.
>
>
> Leif, Mark, any comments on this?
>
As far as I remember, we did not finalize the decision to go with a
stub generated property instead of some other means to infer that the
device tree is not suitable for booting and ACPI should be preferred.
We will be discussing the 'stub<->kernel interface as a boot protocol'
topic this week at Connect, so let's discuss it in that context before
signing off on patches like these.
--
Ard.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
