On 10/04/19 13:31, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 20:03:20 +0200
> "Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
>> (1) What values to use.
> SeaBIOS writes 0x00 into command port, but it seems that's taken by
> EFI_SMM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL. So we can use the next unused value
> (lets say 0x4). We
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 20:03:20 +0200
"Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
> On 09/30/19 16:22, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: de...@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Igor
> >> Mammedov
> >> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 8:37 PM
> >> To: Laszlo Ersek
>
> >>> To me it looks
On 09/30/19 16:22, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: de...@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Igor
>> Mammedov
>> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 8:37 PM
>> To: Laszlo Ersek
>>> To me it looks like we need to figure out how QEMU can make the OS call
>>> into SMM (in the GPE
@redhat.com; Yao, Jiewen ; Nakajima,
> Jun ; Kinney, Michael D
> ; pbonz...@redhat.com;
> boris.ostrov...@oracle.com; r...@edk2.groups.io; joao.m.mart...@oracle.com;
> Brijesh Singh
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] q35: implement 128K
> SMRAM at default SMBASE
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:51:46 +0200
"Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> On 09/24/19 13:19, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 20:35:02 +0200
> > "Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
>
> >> I've got good results. For this (1/2) QEMU patch:
> >>
> >> Tested-by: Laszlo Ersek
> >>
> >> I tested the
Hi Igor,
On 09/24/19 13:19, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 20:35:02 +0200
> "Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
>> I've got good results. For this (1/2) QEMU patch:
>>
>> Tested-by: Laszlo Ersek
>>
>> I tested the following scenarios. In every case, I verified the OVMF
>> log, and also the "info
On 20/09/19 11:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On QEMU side, we can drop black-hole approach and allocate
>> dedicated SMRAM region, which explicitly gets mapped into
>> RAM address space and after SMI hanlder initialization, gets
>> unmapped (locked). So that SMRAM would be accessible only
>> from
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 20:35:02 +0200
"Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
> On 09/20/19 11:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 09/20/19 10:28, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:02:07 +0200
> >> "Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Igor,
> >>>
> >>> (+Brijesh)
> >>>
> >>> long-ish pondering ahead,
On 09/20/19 11:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/20/19 10:28, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:02:07 +0200
>> "Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Igor,
>>>
>>> (+Brijesh)
>>>
>>> long-ish pondering ahead, with a question at the end.
>> [...]
>>
>>> Finally: can you please remind me why we
On 09/20/19 10:28, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:02:07 +0200
> "Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
>
>> Hi Igor,
>>
>> (+Brijesh)
>>
>> long-ish pondering ahead, with a question at the end.
> [...]
>
>> Finally: can you please remind me why we lock down 128KB (32 pages) at
>> 0x3_, and
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:02:07 +0200
"Laszlo Ersek" wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> (+Brijesh)
>
> long-ish pondering ahead, with a question at the end.
[...]
> Finally: can you please remind me why we lock down 128KB (32 pages) at
> 0x3_, and not just half of that? What do we need the range at
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
