On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Joel Schopp wrote: > I'm working on the Linux kernel implementation of an draft standard > that has a uefi component. The interesting part is that the uefi > component isn't in the uefi runtime table, but instead has a > physical address stored an ACPI table. Other than not being in the > runtime table it behaves exactly like the other runtime services. Sigh. Is the spec final yet? Doing this in ACPI is inconvenient - ACPI isn't available at the stage where we do early UEFI setup, so it would have been much easier if this had been a UEFI table rather than an ACPI one. > 2) Various methods to map in the physical address into virtual > address space and then call the virtual address. All of these have > failed. If the function pointer to the ACPI table is to a UEFI runtime region, the kernel should already have set up a virtual to physical mapping for the code. Does SetVirtualAddressMap() update the pointer in the ACPI table? If so, you're good to go - just pass it to the appropriate efi_call_virt*() wrapper. If not, and if the spec isn't final, go back and fix that. > 3) I've started looking at adding an entry to the efi struct and a > line to efi_enter_virtual_mode(...) with the new function name but > haven't found the right spot to add an extra entry on to the mmap > structure. Does this seem like a sane approach? You mean the memmap structure? No, you shouldn't need to do that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
