On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Matt Fleming wrote:
> 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?
Xen on ARM is different, the impact should be limited:
- there are no BootServices (ExitBootServices has already been called)
- RuntimeServices go via hypercalls
The UEFI memory map is still available at an address specified on device
tree like on native, but the compatibility string is different
("xen,uefi-mmap-start") to clarify that we are booting on Xen rather
than native.
That's pretty much it, Shannon please confirm.
