Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 17/19] libxc: support for arm64 Image format

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 01:17 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> On 11/13/2013 06:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v4: actually use v_end and drop unused entry_addr
> > ---
> >   tools/libxc/xc_dom_armzimageloader.c |   85 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 85 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_dom_armzimageloader.c 
> > b/tools/libxc/xc_dom_armzimageloader.c
> > index 4e3f7ae..e6516a1 100644
> > --- a/tools/libxc/xc_dom_armzimageloader.c
> > +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_dom_armzimageloader.c
> > @@ -129,6 +129,83 @@ static int xc_dom_parse_zimage32_kernel(struct 
> > xc_dom_image *dom)
> >   }
> >
> >   /* ------------------------------------------------------------ */
> > +/* 64-bit zImage Support                                        */
> > +/* ------------------------------------------------------------ */
> > +
> > +#define ZIMAGE64_MAGIC_V0 0x14000008
> > +#define ZIMAGE64_MAGIC_V1 0x644d5241 /* "ARM\x64" */
> > +
> > +/* linux/Documentation/arm64/booting.txt */
> > +struct zimage64_hdr {
> > +    uint32_t magic0;
> > +    uint32_t res0;
> > +    uint64_t text_offset;  /* Image load offset */
> > +    uint64_t res1;
> > +    uint64_t res2;
> > +    /* zImage V1 only from here */
> > +    uint64_t res3;
> > +    uint64_t res4;
> > +    uint64_t res5;
> > +    uint32_t magic1;
> > +    uint32_t res6;
> > +};
> > +static int xc_dom_probe_zimage64_kernel(struct xc_dom_image *dom)
> > +{
> > +    struct zimage64_hdr *zimage;
> > +
> > +    if ( dom->kernel_blob == NULL )
> > +    {
> > +        xc_dom_panic(dom->xch, XC_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> > +                     "%s: no kernel image loaded", __FUNCTION__);
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    if ( dom->kernel_size < sizeof(*zimage) )
> > +    {
> > +        xc_dom_printf(dom->xch, "%s: kernel image too small", 
> > __FUNCTION__);
> 
> What about using DOMPRINTF instead of xc_dom_printf?

We are pretty inconsistent in this file, but it looks like I've managed
to use the same thing the 32-bit version does in each case (without even
thinking about it).

I think it is probably ripe for a future cleanup rather than doing a
partial switch here.

> In any case:
> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel