[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: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
- From: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:32:23 +0100
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, wei.chen@xxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 11:32:29 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
Hi Luca,
On 11/10/2021 12:23, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 11 Oct 2021, at 10:39, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> 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.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
|