On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:20:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > Since this is really turning an x86-specific feature into a generic > > one, could it be moved to core code? > > Maybe an efi.mask, reusing the efi_enabled defines, with an > > efi_disabled macro? > > Why the new efi_disabled() and efi.mask? This is all achievable with > efi_enabled() and efi.flags, in fact, this kind of thing is exactly why > they were invented. Because this flag is indicating which facilities we should not try to enable, rather than which facilities we have enabled. The EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag is set after successful call to set_virtual_address_map. The apparent intent of "noefi" is to prevent that call from being made in the first place. Anyway, it was just a suggestion - main point was it would make sense to share the code. > > Also, since this patch (and its x86 predecessor) is not really > > "noefi", could this be integrated with the "efi=" patch > > (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.efi/4405), > > as an efi=noruntime option? > > > > On x86, due to CSM, "noefi" was a useful fallback for completely > > broken (U)EFI implementations - but on an arm* UEFI system, there will > > be no fallback. Could it be wrapped in a kernel hacking config option? > > I don't mind making "noefi" a synonym for "efi=noruntime" on x86, as > long as we keep "noefi" around with the same semantics it's always had. Yeah, that would be nice. / Leif -- 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
