On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 19:01 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Yes, there is no official 32bit external entry point. But on EFI
> > platform, the 16bit entry point can not be used because there is no
> > 16bit BIOS call available. So, I think it is necessary to define a
> > 32bit external entry point.
>
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Ah i didn't realize this. Ok then kexec is also quite broken.
> Somehow this must have been missed this fundamental flaw when this code was
> reviewed.
>
It wasn't missed. It was given the "there is no other way" defence, and
somehow that was considered sufficient.
Now,
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:09:23 huang ying wrote:
> On 8/9/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is really no 32bit entry point today usable for external users. Or
> > rather
> > it might by chance work today, but if we change the zero page (and there
> > is no guarantee it'll no
huang ying wrote:
>
> I think at least the following should be done to make it a external
> boot protocol.
>
> 1. A version number field should be added.
> 2. The pointers (especially these come from firmware) should be 64bit
> to make the entry point can be used for both 32bit and 64bit platform
On 8/9/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is really no 32bit entry point today usable for external users. Or
> rather
> it might by chance work today, but if we change the zero page (and there
> is no guarantee it'll not be changed). I can pretty much guarantee it'll
> be changed at
--- Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that Gujin has a simple problem by using that 32 bits entry point:
>
> There is really no 32bit entry point today usable for external users.
That is why I added the 16 bits entry point support (selected by default),
my target with Gujin was not
> Note that Gujin has a simple problem by using that 32 bits entry point:
There is really no 32bit entry point today usable for external users. Or rather
it might by chance work today, but if we change the zero page (and there
is no guarantee it'll not be changed). I can pretty much guarantee it
Eric W Biederman wrote:
> >> This is the classic skip the 16bit code and enter the kernel
> >> in 32bit mode filling in the fields that the 16bit mode code would
> >> have filled in the same way approach.
> > ..
> >
> > For in tree code it can be just updated. But weirdo-EFI-boot loader
> > can
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> This is the classic skip the 16bit code and enter the kernel
>> in 32bit mode filling in the fields that the 16bit mode code would
>> have filled in the same way approach.
>
> kexec can use it because it's in tree.
Not the part that actually uses it.
>
> This is the classic skip the 16bit code and enter the kernel
> in 32bit mode filling in the fields that the 16bit mode code would
> have filled in the same way approach.
kexec can use it because it's in tree.
But I don't think using it by out of tree stuff is a good idea.
e.g. assuming we
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 17:11:54 huang ying wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Instead, elilo collects the needed information
> > > defined in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h itself,
> >
> > That's nasty. I must have missed when we declared this a public ABI.
> > It'
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The needed code changing is minimal. In fact, I can boot 32bit Linux
>> kernel on my x86_64 EFI machine. With setup as follow:
>>
>> 1. Apply the efi-fb.patch
> Just for the frame buffer, right?
>
>> 2. make efi fb driver not depend on EFI
>> 3. configure
On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Instead, elilo collects the needed information
> > defined in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h itself,
>
> That's nasty. I must have missed when we declared this a public ABI.
> It's not really designed to be one. Was there public discussion on thi
> Instead, elilo collects the needed information
> defined in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h itself,
That's nasty. I must have missed when we declared this a public ABI.
It's not really designed to be one. Was there public discussion on this?
I expect we'll have some grief from this in the futur
>-Original Message-
>From: Andi Kleen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86_64 EFI support -v3: EFI document
>> The needed code changing is minimal. In fact, I can boot 32bit Linux
>> kernel on my x86_64 EFI machine. With setup as follow:
>>
&
> The needed code changing is minimal. In fact, I can boot 32bit Linux
> kernel on my x86_64 EFI machine. With setup as follow:
>
> 1. Apply the efi-fb.patch
Just for the frame buffer, right?
> 2. make efi fb driver not depend on EFI
> 3. configure kernel as follow:
>a. CONFIG_EFI is turned o
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:54 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 August 2007 11:29:44 Huang, Ying wrote:
>
> > > How does EFI handle 32bit/64bit compatibility? In particular
> > > how do I load a 32bit kernel on machine with a 64bit EFI? Can
> > > it be done?
> > >
> > Because the EFI memo
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 11:29:44 Huang, Ying wrote:
> > How does EFI handle 32bit/64bit compatibility? In particular
> > how do I load a 32bit kernel on machine with a 64bit EFI? Can
> > it be done?
> >
> Because the EFI memory map is converted to E820 map in bootloader now,
> it is possible
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 01:16 +0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > The parameters are rearranged, because the pointer is too small. For
> > example, the EFI system table pointer is 8 bytes in x86_64, while it
> is
> > 4 bytes in i386.
>
> Ok. I see what is happening. When the documentation is for a
"Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:40 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> "Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This patch adds document for EFI x86_64 support. The boot parameters
>> > added are documented in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt. The setu
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:40 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This patch adds document for EFI x86_64 support. The boot parameters
> > added are documented in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt. The setup
> > and operation guide of EFI based system is
"Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch adds document for EFI x86_64 support. The boot parameters
> added are documented in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt. The setup
> and operation guide of EFI based system is documented in
> Documentation/x86_64/uefi.txt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chan
This patch adds document for EFI x86_64 support. The boot parameters
added are documented in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt. The setup
and operation guide of EFI based system is documented in
Documentation/x86_64/uefi.txt.
Signed-off-by: Chandramouli Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by:
23 matches
Mail list logo
