From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756980AbdDRNqy (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:46:54 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:37634 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756873AbdDRNqw (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:46:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:46:50 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Mark Rutland Cc: Julien Grall , Daniel Kiper , Juergen Gross , Boris Ostrovsky , sstabellini@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Ard Biesheuvel , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: xen: Implement EFI reset_system callback Message-ID: <20170418134650.GL24360@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <20170405181417.15985-1-julien.grall@arm.com> <3f6f5853-cd08-8afc-f71a-b0c1545c7564@arm.com> <20170406142710.GE4372@olila.local.net-space.pl> <20170406152040.GH4372@olila.local.net-space.pl> <20170406155453.GA3966@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170406155453.GA3966@leverpostej> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper, > rather than spreading it further. > > IMO, given reset_system is a *mandatory* function, the Xen wrapper > should provide an implementation. > > I don't see why you can't implement a wrapper that calls the usual Xen > poweroff/reset functions. I realise I'm making a sweeping generalisation, but adding EFI_PARAVIRT is almost always the wrong thing to do. I'd much prefer to see Mark's idea implemented. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: xen: Implement EFI reset_system callback Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:46:50 +0100 Message-ID: <20170418134650.GL24360@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <20170405181417.15985-1-julien.grall@arm.com> <3f6f5853-cd08-8afc-f71a-b0c1545c7564@arm.com> <20170406142710.GE4372@olila.local.net-space.pl> <20170406152040.GH4372@olila.local.net-space.pl> <20170406155453.GA3966@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170406155453.GA3966@leverpostej> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Julien Grall , Daniel Kiper , Juergen Gross , Boris Ostrovsky , sstabellini-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, xen-devel-GuqFBffKawuEi8DpZVb4nw@public.gmane.org, Ard Biesheuvel , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper, > rather than spreading it further. > > IMO, given reset_system is a *mandatory* function, the Xen wrapper > should provide an implementation. > > I don't see why you can't implement a wrapper that calls the usual Xen > poweroff/reset functions. I realise I'm making a sweeping generalisation, but adding EFI_PARAVIRT is almost always the wrong thing to do. I'd much prefer to see Mark's idea implemented. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: matt@codeblueprint.co.uk (Matt Fleming) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:46:50 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: xen: Implement EFI reset_system callback In-Reply-To: <20170406155453.GA3966@leverpostej> References: <20170405181417.15985-1-julien.grall@arm.com> <3f6f5853-cd08-8afc-f71a-b0c1545c7564@arm.com> <20170406142710.GE4372@olila.local.net-space.pl> <20170406152040.GH4372@olila.local.net-space.pl> <20170406155453.GA3966@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20170418134650.GL24360@codeblueprint.co.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper, > rather than spreading it further. > > IMO, given reset_system is a *mandatory* function, the Xen wrapper > should provide an implementation. > > I don't see why you can't implement a wrapper that calls the usual Xen > poweroff/reset functions. I realise I'm making a sweeping generalisation, but adding EFI_PARAVIRT is almost always the wrong thing to do. I'd much prefer to see Mark's idea implemented.