On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 13:58, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:21 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 13:15, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:49 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > OK, but we don't need to add a new "efi=noruntime" parameter, I can > > > use "noefi" instead. > > > > OK > > > > > But I think support "efi=novamap" is not a bad > > > idea (maybe I misunderstood its usage). > > > > > > > It basically exists to deal with broken EFI firmware on ARM laptops > > that were only intended to run Windows. Windows calls > > SetVirtualAddressMap() *after* creating the new mappings, and some > > broken firmware drivers will access those regions too early. > > > > On Linux, we install the mapping first, and then much later, we > > actually create the mappings and only activate them on a single CPU > > while the EFI runtime service call is in progress. > > > > In any case, I will reinstate the efi_novamap logic for now - we can > > always revisit it later. > OK, now I think there are no big problems. Only some bikesheddings: > 1, Please use "a0=efi boot flag, a1=cmdline a2=systemtable" to pass > boot information, it looks most similar to the old-world, and we can > distinguish old-world/new-world by judging whether a0 is greater than > 1. > 2, I prefer "early return" in efi_init, i.e., if (boot_memmap == > EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) then return immediately, this makes > indentation look better. > 3, Declare "cmdline" out of the if() condition in init_environ() looks better. > 4, I prefer "kernel_addr" rather than "image_addr" in efi_boot_kernel(). > 5, It seems that one line is enough for the last statement in efi_boot_kernel(). > OK > Hope this series will be stable as soon as possible, our kexec/kdump > work needs to adjust because of this change. :) > Do you have a link to those patches?
