> On 11 Oct 2021, at 12:32, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Luca,
>
> On 11/10/2021 12:23, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 11 Oct 2021, at 10:39, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Luca,
>>>
>> Hi Julien,
>>> On 11/10/2021 09:03, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>> +static bool __init is_boot_module(int dt_module_offset)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if ( (fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, dt_module_offset,
>>>> + "multiboot,kernel") == 0) ||
>>>> + (fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, dt_module_offset,
>>>> + "multiboot,ramdisk") == 0) ||
>>>> + (fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, dt_module_offset,
>>>> + "multiboot,device-tree") == 0) )
>>>> + return true;
>>>
>>> A boot module *must* have the compatible "multiboot,module". I would prefer
>>> if we simply check that "multiboot,module" is present.
>>>
>>> This will also make easier to add new boot module in the future.
>> I thought that also the XSM policy was a multiboot,module so I checked
>> explicitly for kernel, ramdisk, device-tree that are supported
>> by domU.
>
> The XSM policy is indeed a multiboot module and should not be used by the
> domU.
>
>> Do you still think that I should check just for multiboot,module instead?
>
> Yes please. I think this is not the EFI stub job to check that the most
> specific compatible is correct.
Ok, I will push the v6 with this change.
Cheers,
Luca
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
