On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:56:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 07:36 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> >
> > That's a pretty good summary for x86. I think specifically the reason
> > we map the EFI memmap entries "backwards" (entry N has higher VA than
> > entry N+1) is because the code was easier to write that way, but
> > you'll know better than me ;-)
> >
>
> There were two reasons:
>
> 1. The code was easier to write.
> 2. Windows did it that way.
>
> Windows apparently broke and was changed due to this feature, too.
So can we do the 1:1 thing again?
I mean, we do create a special pagetable for EFI anyway, we can put in
there whatever we want.
I know, some apple boxes reportedly fail when 1:1 mapping is in use but
we can do the VA mapping as a workaround for them. I.e., have the 1:1
mapping be the default.
Apparently, there's not a single OS or tool which is used by fw writers
to test their brain dumplings. Windoze breakage case-in-point.
Because if there were, we'd simply do what that OS/tool does and be done
with it.
What really makes me climb the walls is when half-cooked, untested fw
hits the wild and we have to support it indefinitely.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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
