From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1YbVim-0003r3-Hv for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:58:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44197) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbVij-0003nK-Ru for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbVig-0000gR-Hp for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:58:49 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:31836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbVig-0000gC-BP for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:58:46 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t2REwY1c012388 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:58:34 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t2REwYJH029846 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:58:34 GMT Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t2REwY4K002525; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:58:34 GMT Received: from olila.local.net-space.pl (/10.175.231.232) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:58:33 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:57:46 +0100 From: Daniel Kiper To: Jan Beulich Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] x86: add multiboot2 protocol support for EFI platforms Message-ID: <20150327145746.GA440@olila.local.net-space.pl> References: <1422640462-28103-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <1422640462-28103-19-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <550810B1020000780006AA3A@mail.emea.novell.com> <20150327130652.GM8294@olila.local.net-space.pl> <55156AF0020000780006E92B@mail.emea.novell.com> <20150327142626.GP8294@olila.local.net-space.pl> <5515787C020000780006EA96@mail.emea.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5515787C020000780006EA96@mail.emea.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 Cc: Juergen Gross , grub-devel@gnu.org, keir@xen.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, roy.franz@linaro.org, ning.sun@intel.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com, phcoder@gmail.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, qiaowei.ren@intel.com, richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com, gang.wei@intel.com, fu.wei@linaro.org X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:58:50 -0000 On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:34:19PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 27.03.15 at 15:26, wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 01:36:32PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 27.03.15 at 14:06, wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:32:01AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> >>> On 30.01.15 at 18:54, wrote: > >> >> > + /* Skip Multiboot2 information fixed part */ > >> >> > + lea MB2_fixed_sizeof(%ebx),%ecx > >> >> > >> >> Let's please not add more assumptions than necessary about stuff > >> >> being below 4G. > >> > > >> > I am not sure what do you mean by that. > >> > >> See the 32-bit register used for addressing here (and in many more > >> places)? > > > > This is what I expected but I was confused because you were referring only > > here to this problem. Anyway, is it possible to do this in different way? > > Should we care if image is always loaded at 0x100000 right now? Even with > > Xen early boot code being relocatable loader could not load image higher > > than 0xffffffff - 14 MiB. > > I don't understand what you're alluding to. Just use 64-bit registers > for memory accesses and LEAs, and be done. This will result in smaller > code as a benefit. Well... How can I do that here if processor is in 32-bit mode? Maybe, we could that things after switching to 64-bit mode. However, I think this requires separate patch to do these changes. Daniel