From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Thu Sep 10 14:13:59 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20636A0034F for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:13:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leif.lindholm@linaro.org) Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A71941154 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:13:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leif.lindholm@linaro.org) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so26942311wic.0 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 07:13:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=in5GC6WTYotm0NuJi4pP6eJXJKyZLdPYfOyBmjDdnBI=; b=NYtm4PsL3eEijii2vVBsx544CmjLuojw/ENahApDVOY6x2fagsABz/5ly3c4RgOov2 gaW2NdC3KwcTYJAAsU3Qoshsy/sevT41/JYQgFW6WBgGm+b1zZ5yLD8trxNG3b5X8E0f HDbTM5xJxug479R16r1lsP/fsGHjtxRc9MC28f45bzYYnTUXHYocte7wLJOdGsIrINqt j9V39UHygeF2eFItzkYjeLHLYkTtmEs0VI179V114mY54Q1laShPqT3fE1x54DWHFsAW soXPrws50qb09Ph3lapCvF8tROaN6YR9O2fDjrug75zlwhtPPRi0BzALGWmopsEF4HPi XjwA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsmQ9/dodCW+fQFPHESCfSXgRxv1GDA0C6w47XzVJsp+kwrF7Zc3QF7sHVCLo9NZNGQQa3 X-Received: by 10.180.87.1 with SMTP id t1mr6611388wiz.33.1441894430534; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 07:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mc18sm9527838wic.23.2015.09.10.07.13.48 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Sep 2015 07:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:13:46 +0100 From: Leif Lindholm To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Mark Rutland , Shannon Zhao , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "Ian.Campbell@citrix.com" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , "julien.grall@citrix.com" , "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" , "matt.fleming@intel.com" , "christoffer.dall@linaro.org" , "jbeulich@suse.com" , "peter.huangpeng@huawei.com" , "shannon.zhao@linaro.org" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "daniel.kiper@oracle.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters Message-ID: <20150910141346.GV10728@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1441874516-11364-1-git-send-email-zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> <20150910095208.GA29293@leverpostej> <20150910112418.GC29293@leverpostej> <20150910121514.GE29293@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:20:47 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:13:59 -0000 On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > In any case this should be separate from the shim ABI discussion. > > > > I disagree; I think this is very much relevant to the ABI discussion. > > That's not to say that I insist on a particular approach, but I think > > that they need to be considered together. > > Let's suppose Xen didn't expose any RuntimeServices at all, would that > make it easier to discuss about the EFI stub parameters? Possibly :) > In the grant > scheme of things, they are not that important, as Ian wrote what is > important is how to pass the RSDP. So, we have discussed in the past having the ability to get at configuration tables when UEFI is not available. Say, for example, that we wanted SMBIOS support on a platform with U-Boot firmware. Since all that is needed then is a UEFI System Table with a pointer to a configuration table array, this should be fairly straightforward to implement statically. The other parameters would not be necessary. It would however require minor changes to the arm64 kernel UEFI support. / Leif