On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 05:12:26PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > I am starting to think that we really should explicitly pass along the > EFI mappings to the secondary kernel. This will also help if we have to > change the algorithm in a future kernel. That would be the most flexible solution, sure. > The most logical way to do this is to define a new setup_data type and > pass the entire set of physical-to-virtual mappings that way. > > For example: > > struct efi_mapping { > u64 va; /* Virtual start address */ > u64 pa; /* Physical start address */ > u64 len; /* Length in bytes */ > u64 type; /* Mapping type */ > u64 reserved[3]; /* Reserved, must be zero */ > }; > > Adding some reserved fields seems like a prudent precaution; ... and making checking they're zeroed out initially so that I can use them in the future, if needed :) > the map shouldn't be all that large anyway. Yeah, let me look at it in more detail when I get back - it shouldn't be that hard to do. Thanks. -- 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