On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 12:47, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:37 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 12:33, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Ard, > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:22 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 08:06, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Ard, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 1:15 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 03:58, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Ard, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the parameters passed to the core kernel need to be discussed. > > > > > > > The old way (so-called old world): > > > > > > > a0=argc, a1=argv, a1=bpi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current way (so-called new world): > > > > > > > a0=efi boot flag, a1=fdt pointer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The new way (in this patchset): > > > > > > > a0=efi boot flag, a1=systemtable, a2=cmdline > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer to use the current way, there are 3 reasons: > > > > > > > 1, both acpi system and dt system can use the same parameters passing method; > > > > > > > > > > > > DT systems will use this too. The distinction is between EFI boot and > > > > > > non-EFI boot. We *really* should keep these separate, given the > > > > > > experience on ARM, where other projects invent ways to pass those > > > > > > values to the kernel without going through the stub. > > > > > In the last patch I see: > > > > > + void *fdt_ptr = early_memremap_ro(fw_arg1, SZ_64K); > > > > > + > > > > > + early_init_dt_scan(fdt_ptr); > > > > > + early_init_fdt_reserve_self(); > > > > > + > > > > > clear_bit(EFI_BOOT, &efi.flags); > > > > > So I suppose for the DT system that means a0=efi boot flag, a1=fdt > > > > > pointer, a2=cmdline? Then it is not exactly the same as the ACPI > > > > > system, but similar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, for non-EFI DT boot, the command line is passed via the DT, so > > > > a0=0x0 (non-efi), a1=DT, a2=0x0 > > > > > > > > Do you intend to support non-EFI DT boot by the way? > > > I think we needn't support non-EFI DT boot, so a0=efi boot flag, > > > a1=systemtable, a2=cmdline is just OK (or maybe we can exchange a1/a2, > > > which looks similar to the old-world). > > > > Excellent. If non-EFI boot is not supported, we can drop the code that > > deals with that. > > > > > But I have another question: is > > > it early enough to get DT from systemtable for DT boot (in the current > > > way DT is the earliest thing)? > > > > > > > If you rely on DT only for the hardware description, then loading it > > from efi_init() should be fine. > OK, then please drop patch #12 at this time. It can be added when we > add Loongson-2K support. > OK > > > > I don't think it makes sense to allow efi=novamap on LoongArch, given > > > > that we cannot make use of the runtime services that way. So in my > > > > code, efi_novamap is set to false unconditionally. > > > Emm, I prefer to support "efi=novamap", the core kernel has already > > > supported "noefi" to disable runtime, I don't want to hack > > > efi_novamap. So please keep the efi boot flag, thanks. > > > > > > > Fair enough. Do you have any uses for efi_novamap in mind? > I usually use "efi=novamap" in EFI shell to see whether it can work > well without runtime. And I think I will modify this patch these days > because in another thread you said that this series cannot boot. It works fine now. However, clearing the EFI_BOOT flag is not the correct way to disable runtime services only. And note that we also have efi=noruntime - does that currently work on LoongArch?
