On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:16:49PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:34 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:47:06PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > > [...] > > > +/* > > > + * Called from setup_arch with interrupts disabled. > > > + */ > > > +void __init efi_enter_virtual_mode(void) > > [...] > > > --- a/init/main.c > > > +++ b/init/main.c > > > @@ -902,6 +902,10 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void) > > > smp_prepare_cpus(setup_max_cpus); > > > > > > do_pre_smp_initcalls(); > > > + > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)) > > > + efi_enter_virtual_mode(); > > > > The comment for the efi_enter_virtual_mode() function says "called from > > setup_arch with interrupts disabled". None of these are true for the > > call above (and I would really prefer an arch call than this arm64 > > conditional call in init/main.c. > > > > Right, the call changed to later in boot but the comment didn't. Calling > from setup_arch is too early. But an early_initcall would work and would > get rid of the ugly CONFIG_ARM64 test. I agree, early_initcall() is better. -- Catalin -- 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
