On 06/25/2013 01:11:00 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
This patch provides documentation of the [U]EFI runtime services and
configuration features.
Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm leif.lindh...@linaro.org
---
Documentation/arm/00-INDEX |3 +++
Documentation/arm/uefi.txt | 39
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:38:19AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
The fixed virtual address scheme currently being looked at for x86_64 to
make SetVirtualAddressMap() kexec invariant doesn't work on 32 bit
because the
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:23 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:38:19AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
The fixed virtual address scheme currently being looked at for x86_64 to
make
On Wednesday 26 June 2013, Grant Likely wrote:
index 000..5c48271
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/arm/uefi.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+The nomenclature EFI and UEFI are used interchangeably in this document.
+
+The implementation depends on receiving pointers to the UEFI memory map
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:33:41PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:23 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
What is the problem trying to be avoided by not using the virtual map?
Is it passing the virtual mapping data from one kernel to the next
when kexecing? Or something else?
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:00:50AM +0200, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:32:19AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We can probably get away with that now, but it does risk us ending up
with some firmware that expects to run in physical mode (boards designed
for Linux) and
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:33 AM, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:23 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:38:19AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 15:54 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:33 AM, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:23 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
On
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 15:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:33:41PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 07:23 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
What is the problem trying to be avoided by not using the virtual map?
Is it passing the virtual mapping data
On 06/26/2013 01:31 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:32:30PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
What about ARMv8? Is the intention to have a separate definition for the
UEFI bindings on ARMv8, so that compatibility isn't an issue? What if a
future version of UEFI allows LPAE
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:04:46AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
That's what the x86_64 proposal from Borislav Petkov does. We alter the
page tables before calling into the UEFI hooks to make sure both the
physical and virtual addresses work. Your problem on ARM with this
approach is that
On 06/26/2013 07:38 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 14:59 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun, at 03:53:11PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
It's completely feasible, but we'd need to use a different method to do
the boot services call with a 1:1 mapping (idmap support is not
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 06/26/2013 01:31 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:32:30PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
What about ARMv8? Is the intention to have a separate definition for the
UEFI bindings on ARMv8, so that
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Leif Lindholm leif.lindh...@linaro.org wrote:
This patch provides documentation of the [U]EFI runtime services and
configuration features.
Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm leif.lindh...@linaro.org
---
Documentation/arm/00-INDEX |3 +++
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 06/25/2013 12:11 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
This patch provides documentation of the [U]EFI runtime services and
configuration features.
diff --git a/Documentation/arm/uefi.txt b/Documentation/arm/uefi.txt
+The
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:20:23PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
the properties) should be part of a file in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ (arm/uefi.txt?).
What node are these properties expected to be
On Wed, 26 Jun, at 03:53:11PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
It's completely feasible, but we'd need to use a different method to do
the boot services call with a 1:1 mapping (idmap support is not available
until much later in the boot process).
At least if you no longer relied upon the idmap we could
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 14:59 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun, at 03:53:11PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
It's completely feasible, but we'd need to use a different method to do
the boot services call with a 1:1 mapping (idmap support is not available
until much later in the boot process).
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:32:30PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
What about ARMv8? Is the intention to have a separate definition for the
UEFI bindings on ARMv8, so that compatibility isn't an issue? What if a
future version of UEFI allows LPAE usage?
It is unlikely that will happen on
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:38:19AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
The fixed virtual address scheme currently being looked at for x86_64 to
make SetVirtualAddressMap() kexec invariant doesn't work on 32 bit
because the address space isn't big enough. For ARM, given that we've
much more
20 matches
Mail list logo