From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Fri Sep 11 13:16:17 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 9D304A027A6 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:16:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=689e42d66=Stefano.Stabellini@citrix.com) Received: from SMTP.CITRIX.COM (smtp.citrix.com [66.165.176.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.citrix.com", Issuer "Verizon Public SureServer CA G14-SHA2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 289711F1D for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:16:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=689e42d66=Stefano.Stabellini@citrix.com) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,511,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="299435767" Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:14:09 +0100 From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@kaball.uk.xensource.com To: Daniel Kiper CC: Mark Rutland , Stefano Stabellini , 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" , "leif.lindholm@linaro.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 Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters In-Reply-To: <20150911124643.GB4530@olila.local.net-space.pl> Message-ID: References: <1441874516-11364-1-git-send-email-zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> <20150910095208.GA29293@leverpostej> <20150910112418.GC29293@leverpostej> <20150910121514.GE29293@leverpostej> <20150910144938.GI29293@leverpostej> <20150910162302.GN29293@leverpostej> <20150911124643.GB4530@olila.local.net-space.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-DLP: MIA2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:55:47 +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: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:16:17 -0000 On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:23:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > C) When you could go: > > > > > > > > DT -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff -> Xen-specific EFI/ACPI discovery > > > > > > I take you mean discovering Xen with the usual Xen hypervisor node on > > > device tree. I think that C) is a good option actually. I like it. Not > > > sure why we didn't think about this earlier. Is there anything EFI or > > > ACPI which is needed before Xen support is discovered by > > > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c:setup_arch -> xen_early_init()? > > > > Currently lots (including the memory map). With the stuff to support > > SPCR, the ACPI discovery would be moved before xen_early_init(). > > > > > If not, we could just go for this. A lot of complexity would go away. > > > > I suspect this would still be fairly complex, but would at least prevent > > the Xen-specific EFI handling from adversely affecting the native case. > > > > > > D) If you want to be generic: > > > > EFI -> EFI application -> EFI tables -> ACPI tables -> Xen-specific stuff > > > > \------------------------------------------/ > > > > (virtualize these, provide shims to Dom0, but handle > > > > everything in Xen itself) > > > > > > I think that this is good in theory but could turn out to be a lot of > > > work in practice. We could probably virtualize the RuntimeServices but > > > the BootServices are troublesome. > > > > What's troublesome with the boot services? > > > > What can't be simulated? > > How do you want to access bare metal EFI boot services from dom0 if they > were shutdown long time ago before loading dom0 image? What do you need > from EFI boot services in dom0? That's right. Trying to emulate BootServices after the real ExitBootServices has already been called seems like a very bad plan. I think that whatever interface we come up with, would need to be past ExitBootServices.