[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] arm/efi: Use dom0less configuration when using EFI boot

  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:56:13 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=28ZnLR4xsQYS1yU5qFJD7IznQZsEhijGabxw2q5ZwMM=; b=NUcsROvyvF2rw6fPYMWpZriIukikXsBbbqE4qm5luLiCvTvZ36jj6t2PwPEYB13zZhFoiVTZU3xISbcc9r3f/zPVlOmVerhVbrVTlfrvaSyIgonG+hQ9L4lYQtqwGVrlrke9RuaXep/pGRu7Y5ZCmZWNASyCQmF2MYN9MShMXTVWTnN5V4D481EHBGL8lr6giidW8ks0de6cKYvjKDu5SCZfUtXlNk1puMM43ENurd6zkYhrMI6N2PcahT5GRqu5EOGGjbz4MuZjvcLadkqhlP7yQ915Q8E0G1mxVY4jdVDiAx1VDtIiIFxMJjPHAom2pz2rPbgoxrsBvvt7HRS3Vw==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=AmL3mD3jkuAEUXAf0tbmYVUFrrhKwlPBbWABBDk0xiqP34Te7Sj93qpkto3t/6hPk/4uizt6ULiyX4LqYW4zUtslu+fl6tEtyhjEMgunbkMLrKLctO6oDU6KlZynSrZ+Cz/j+btSzGY4HnfLEaOYsc4opJGXMKblkZCIBrxRnn4nQ9V/iqls3OJk2sBUlC5cfQQ8/rBW/jFONmbuMPIJUyiFXueOHZu0McWugFZ9O5NMrCvGZwg+E87nsk7d4kwVfUC2ajDutQHMk414EC8phKw2GoqxQ1nNdjqnonKuQKc5QTu2fJfczAxrCgqqXaWCYYSZ3NZ7pVdsdNURFupYEQ==
  • Authentication-results-original: suse.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;suse.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
  • Cc: Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@xxxxxxx>, Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:56:37 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Nodisclaimer: true
  • Original-authentication-results: suse.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;suse.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
  • Thread-topic: [PATCH v5 1/2] arm/efi: Use dom0less configuration when using EFI boot

Hi Jan,

> On 11 Oct 2021, at 09:52, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11.10.2021 10:50, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 11 Oct 2021, at 09:11, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 11.10.2021 10:03, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>> This patch introduces the support for dom0less configuration
>>>> when using UEFI boot on ARM, it permits the EFI boot to
>>>> continue if no dom0 kernel is specified but at least one domU
>>>> is found.
>>>> Introduce the new property "xen,uefi-binary" for device tree boot
>>>> module nodes that are subnode of "xen,domain" compatible nodes.
>>>> The property holds a string containing the file name of the
>>>> binary that shall be loaded by the uefi loader from the filesystem.
>>>> Introduce a new call efi_check_dt_boot(...) called during EFI boot
>>>> that checks for module to be loaded using device tree.
>>>> Architectures that don't support device tree don't have to
>>>> provide this function.
>>>> Update efi documentation about how to start a dom0less
>>>> setup using UEFI
>>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Did you get indication that these are fine to retain with ...
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v5:
>>>> - Removed unneeded variable initialization
>>>> - Fixed comment
>>>> - Fixed error message for the absence of an initial domain kernel
>>>> - changed efi_arch_check_dt_boot to efi_check_dt_boot and add
>>>> a stub if CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE is not declared, updated commit
>>>> message about the call introduction in the EFI boot flow.
>>> ... all of these changes? Every individual change may be minor enough,
>>> but their sum makes me wonder. If so (or if at least one of the two
>>> gets re-offered)
>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>> albeit preferably with ...
>>>> --- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c
>>>> @@ -166,6 +166,13 @@ static void __init PrintErr(const CHAR16 *s)
>>>>    StdErr->OutputString(StdErr, (CHAR16 *)s );
>>>> }
>>>> +static inline int __init efi_check_dt_boot(EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle)
>>> ... the "inline" here dropped. We don't normally add this outside of
>>> headers, leaving it to the compiler to decide. In headers it's wanted
>>> to avoid "defined by never used" style warnings.
>> Ok I can drop it in a next serie and retain your Ack, or is it something that
>> can be done on commit? 
> I guess that's easy enough to do while committing. Provided of course
> the two R-b get confirmed.

I confirm my R-b.


> Jan



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.