On Fri, 29 Apr, at 11:34:45AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Also, it would be nice to have all things EFI in a single tree, the conflicts are > > going to be painful! There's very little reason not to carry this kind of commit: > > > > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 6 +++++ > > drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 17 +++++++++----- > > drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > in the EFI tree. > > That's true. I'll drop this commit from xentip and let Matt pick it up > or request changes as he sees fit. One small change I think would be sensible to make is to expand EFI_PARAVIRT into a few more bits to clearly indicate the quirks on Xen, and in the process, to delete EFI_PARAVIRT. That should address Ingo's major concern, and also make it much easier to rework the code in a piecemeal fashion. Could somebody enumerate the things that make Xen (dom0) different on arm* compared with bare metal EFI boot? The list I made for x86 was, 1. Has no EFI memory map 2. Runtime regions do not need to be mapped 3. Cannot call SetVirtualAddressMap() 4. /sys/firmware/efi/fw_vendor is invisible The first maps to not setting EFI_MEMMAP, the second to not setting EFI_RUNTIME. If we add EFI_ALREADY_VIRTUAL and EFI_FW_VENDOR_INVISIBLE to efi.flags that should cover everything on x86. Does arm* require anything else? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
