On Tue, 03 May, at 09:45:22AM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> > +static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char
> > *uname,
> > + int depth, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct param_info *info = data;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_
On 2016/4/30 22:14, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> I already proposed when this patch was first under review to make the
>> > arm_enable_runtime_services() function bail early without error if the
>> > EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag is already set, and the xen code could set
>> > that bit as well when it inst
On 2016/5/2 18:45, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May, at 10:36:51PM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> So is there any other way you suggest?
>
> Would this work (compile tested but not runtime tested)?
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> index 3a69ed5ecf
On Sun, 01 May, at 10:36:51PM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> So is there any other way you suggest?
Would this work (compile tested but not runtime tested)?
---
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
index 3a69ed5ecfcb..13d8be16447a 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
+
On 2016年05月01日 21:26, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May, at 11:24:18AM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> Because the UEFI params for Dom0 are located under /hypervisor/uefi node
>> instead of /chosen. So it needs to check whether it's a Dom0 then search
>> and parse different node with different params ar
On Sun, 01 May, at 11:24:18AM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> Because the UEFI params for Dom0 are located under /hypervisor/uefi node
> instead of /chosen. So it needs to check whether it's a Dom0 then search
> and parse different node with different params arrays.
Why can't you search both nodes? Would
On 2016年05月01日 04:44, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> While I still have a question, in this patch we use
>> > efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT) as a condition to make fdt_find_uefi_params()
>> > and efi_get_fdt_params() execute different ways. So it needs to find a
>> > new condition for that if we need to get rid
On Sat, 30 Apr, at 10:14:42PM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> Sure. How should I add this change? Rework this patch or add new one on
> top of it?
Rework this patch, please.
> Yes, in this patch we could set EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag in
> fdt_find_hyper_node instead of setting EFI_PARAVIRT flag, and then
On 2016年04月29日 22:53, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 April 2016 at 16:39, 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
goi
On 2016年04月29日 23:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> 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
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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
>
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 t
On 29 April 2016 at 16:39, 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
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/ar
* 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
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-runt
On Fri, 29 Apr, at 10:25:02AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:39:36AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > With considerable pain we just got rid of paravirt_enabled() in the
> > x86 tree, and Xen is now reintroducing it in the EFI code.
>
> I think Matt is working towards removing E
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:39:36AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> With considerable pain we just got rid of paravirt_enabled() in the
> x86 tree, and Xen is now reintroducing it in the EFI code.
I think Matt is working towards removing EFI_PARAVIRT but he'll comment
himself when he wakes up... :)
--
* Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 14c43be60166 ("efi/arm*: Drop writable mapping of the UEFI System table")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 21c8d
19 matches
Mail list logo