On 4 July 2014 18:59, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:51:31PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 4 July 2014 17:45, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> According to the UEFI spec section 2.3.6.4, the use of FP/SIMD instructions is >> >> allowed, and should adhere to the AAPCS64 calling convention, which states that >> >> 'only the bottom 64 bits of each value stored in registers v8-v15 need to be >> >> preserved' (section 5.1.2). >> >> >> >> This applies equally to UEFI Runtime Services called by the kernel, so make sure >> >> the FP/SIMD register file is preserved in this case. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > While the code looks fine, I think there is a mismatch between what the >> > subject says and what the patch does (enabling EFI_RUNTIME_WRAPPERS). >> > >> >> Not entirely. In order to be able to insert calls to >> kernel_neon_begin()/end() into the runtime services calls, we need >> a) to supply definitions for efi_call_virt() and __efi_call_virt() >> that contain those calls to kernel_neon_begin()/end() >> b) to enable runtime wrappers (which is what uses those definitions) >> >> Would you prefer those to be split in 2 patches? > > No, that's fine. You could just add the above explanation to the commit > log. Otherwise: > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> OK, thanks. I will add your ack and ask Matt to take it. -- Ard. -- 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
