On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:51:22 -0600, Matt Sealey <neko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +UEFI kernel support on ARM > > +========================== > > +UEFI kernel support on the ARM architectures (arm and arm64) is only available > > +when boot is performed through the stub. > > + > > +The stub populates the FDT /chosen node with (and the kernel scans for) the > > +following parameters: > > +________________________________________________________________________________ > > +Name | Size | Description > > +================================================================================ > > +linux,uefi-system-table | 64-bit | Physical address of the UEFI System Table. > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > +linux,uefi-mmap-start | 64-bit | Physical address of the UEFI memory map, > > + | | populated by the UEFI GetMemoryMap() call. > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > +linux,uefi-mmap-size | 32-bit | Size in bytes of the UEFI memory map > > + | | pointed to in previous entry. > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > +linux,uefi-mmap-desc-size | 32-bit | Size in bytes of each entry in the UEFI > > + | | memory map. > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > +linux,uefi-mmap-desc-ver | 32-bit | Version of the mmap descriptor format. > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > +linux,uefi-stub-kern-ver | string | Copy of linux_banner from build. > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This flies in the face of actually using #address-cells and > #size-cells to define how big addresses and sizes are. You're limited > here by the root node definitions... that's the spec. > > Here's where I think this whole thing falls down as being the weirdest > possible implementation of this. It defies logic to put this > information in the device tree /chosen node while also attempting to > boot the kernel using an EFI stub; the stub is going to have this > information because it is going to have the pointer to the system > System Table (since it was called by StartImage()). Why not stash the > System Table pointer somewhere safe in the stub? Everything here is about getting from the stub to the kernel. We have a boot interface for the kernel proper. It works, and this patch set works with it. Also, this is effectively a kernel-internal interface between the stub and the kernel so there aren't any ABI issues that we need to deail with. Go ahead and propose patches for a better interface, but in the mean time I see no reason not to merge this series. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
