On 08/07/14 at 09:26pm, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug, at 02:19:45PM, Dave Young wrote:
> >
> > The current efi_runtime_init() enables the bit after getting the efi
> > callback phyaddr of SetVirtualAddressMap.
> >
> > Thinking more about it, since SetVirtualAddressMap() could fail
> > som
On Thu, 07 Aug, at 02:19:45PM, Dave Young wrote:
>
> The current efi_runtime_init() enables the bit after getting the efi
> callback phyaddr of SetVirtualAddressMap.
>
> Thinking more about it, since SetVirtualAddressMap() could fail
> somehow it seems better to set EFI_RUNTIME_SERIVCES bit only
On Thu, 07 Aug, at 09:27:09AM, Dave Young wrote:
>
> As for Xen and SGI people? I have not been following all the efi threads
> so I'm not sure who exactly I should cc, could you tell me?
For Xen, Daniel Kiper
For SGI, Russ Anderson and Alex Thorlton
.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Te
> On 7 aug. 2014, at 03:28, Dave Young wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/14 at 02:40pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 6 August 2014 10:38, Dave Young wrote:
>>>
>>> Adding a noefi boot param like in X86 to disable efi runtime services
>>> support.
>>>
>>> This will be useful for debugging uefi problems.
On 08/06/14 at 03:18pm, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug, at 04:10:45PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't we clear the bit here if we failed to enable runtime
> > services for some reason? Other code may test the bit assuming that it
> > signifies that runtime services have been enabled
On 08/06/14 at 02:40pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 6 August 2014 10:38, Dave Young wrote:
> >
> > Adding a noefi boot param like in X86 to disable efi runtime services
> > support.
> >
> > This will be useful for debugging uefi problems. Also it will be useful
> > for later kexec/kdump work. Kexe
On 08/06/14 at 03:01pm, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug, at 02:29:41PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:20:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > > Since this is really turning an x86-specific feature into a generic
> > > > one, could it be moved to core code?
> > > > Maybe
On Wed, 06 Aug, at 03:48:39PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>
> Since we're now overlaying two different meanings onto the
> EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES bit, could we add comments at set/clear points to
> explicitly state the intended action? I.e.:
>
> /* Set to attempt runtime services initialisation */
>
> /
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 03:18:14PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug, at 04:10:45PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't we clear the bit here if we failed to enable runtime
> > services for some reason? Other code may test the bit assuming that it
> > signifies that runtime services
On Wed, 06 Aug, at 04:10:45PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> Shouldn't we clear the bit here if we failed to enable runtime
> services for some reason? Other code may test the bit assuming that it
> signifies that runtime services have been enabled successfully, while
> this patch changes it to mean t
On 6 August 2014 16:01, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug, at 02:29:41PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:20:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> > > Since this is really turning an x86-specific feature into a generic
>> > > one, could it be moved to core code?
>> > > Maybe an
On Wed, 06 Aug, at 02:29:41PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:20:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > Since this is really turning an x86-specific feature into a generic
> > > one, could it be moved to core code?
> > > Maybe an efi.mask, reusing the efi_enabled defines, with an
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:20:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > Since this is really turning an x86-specific feature into a generic
> > one, could it be moved to core code?
> > Maybe an efi.mask, reusing the efi_enabled defines, with an
> > efi_disabled macro?
>
> Why the new efi_disabled() and
On Wed, 06 Aug, at 02:06:23PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:38:25PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> >
> > Adding a noefi boot param like in X86 to disable efi runtime services
> > support.
> >
> > This will be useful for debugging uefi problems. Also it will be useful
> > for lat
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:38:25PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>
> Adding a noefi boot param like in X86 to disable efi runtime services support.
>
> This will be useful for debugging uefi problems. Also it will be useful
> for later kexec/kdump work. Kexec on uefi support in X86 depends on a fixed
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 09:38:25AM +0100, Dave Young wrote:
> Adding a noefi boot param like in X86 to disable efi runtime services support.
>
> This will be useful for debugging uefi problems. Also it will be useful
> for later kexec/kdump work. Kexec on uefi support in X86 depends on a fixed vm
On 6 August 2014 10:38, Dave Young wrote:
>
> Adding a noefi boot param like in X86 to disable efi runtime services support.
>
> This will be useful for debugging uefi problems. Also it will be useful
> for later kexec/kdump work. Kexec on uefi support in X86 depends on a fixed vm
> area specific
17 matches
Mail list logo
