[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 38/62] arm/acpi: Add placeholder for efi and acpi load address
Hi Stefano, On 26/11/15 16:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 18/11/15 03:01, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> "All above tables will be mapped to Dom0 non-RAM space. Since when >>> booting through ACPI it doesn't need the grant table region(see below >>> section 3), it could use this region to store the tables or use the same >>> way to find one memory region to store them." >>> >>> Firstly, as Jan suggested, these tables should not be in RAM space, so >>> we drop the previous way that copying these tables to Dom0 RAM. >>> Then I suggested map these tables to the space after the Dom0 RAM space, >>> but this not right because Dom0 RAM region might be at the edge of >>> physical RAM space and there might be device MMIO regions. >>> Then you suggest it could map these tables to the region which is used >>> for grant table(or the region found by the same way) while it's not used >>> when it boots with ACPI. These regions are not used by Xen and will not >>> be used by Dom0 either currently. But as you say, it will be wrong if >>> Dom0 memory is not 1:1 mapped. >> >> Will you remember in 6 months why you wrote the code like that? >> >> My point on the previous mail is you don't describe what you did, >> neither in the code nor in the commit message. >> >> Most of the place in the code are trying to avoid the assumption that >> DOM0 is using direct mapped. If not, we always have a comment/commit >> message explaining why we are doing like that and the implication (see >> the grant table example [1]). >> >>> So how about below idea: >>> We still copy these tables to Dom0 RAM space but when we create >>> EFI_MMAP_TABLE, we remove the space occupied by these tables from the >>> EfiConventionalMemory descriptor. >> >> As you don't need the grant table region, why don't you re-use it fopr >> your tables? It may also be possible that we have some space just after >> for the EFI table. > > I think that the current approach is good, please just extend the > in-code comment in patch #40. In fact my suggestion was wrong :/. We need real memory for EFI/ACPI placeholder. Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |