From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754306AbcDHOQi (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:16:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:47275 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752047AbcDHOQh (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:16:37 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,449,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="345802943" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" References: <20160406024027.GX1990@wotan.suse.de> <20160407185148.GL1990@wotan.suse.de> CC: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Matt Fleming , Michael Chang , Julien Grall , Jan Beulich , "H. Peter Anvin" , Daniel Kiper , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , =?UTF-8?B?Vm9qdMSbY2ggUGF2bMOt?= =?UTF-8?Q?k?= , Gary Lin , xen-devel , Jeffrey Cheung , "Charles Arndol" , Stefano Stabellini , Jim Fehlig , joeyli , Borislav Petkov , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , Andrew Cooper , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andy Lutomirski , "David Vrabel" , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= , Takashi Iwai , , , Julien Grall From: George Dunlap Message-ID: <5707BD2E.20204@citrix.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:16:14 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160407185148.GL1990@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to deal > with the HVMLite specific entry, it would also still mean diverging from ARM's > own EFI entry only position, which I'd like to clarify that ARM has no custom > Xen entry, we should strive to match that. Anything far from that to me really > deserves an explanation, specially if we are going to argue that HVMLite is > the best that x86 Xen can do. > > Ultimately unifying entry approaches for Xen in a streamlined fashion seems > like a sensible thing to strive for. Anything we push in the other direction, > as small as it can be, should deserve at least a 'hey, wait a minute'... Quick factual correction here. "Since ARM guests only use the EFI entry point, x86 guests should also only use the EFI entry point" is certainly a reasonable argument to make. However, dom0 on ARM does not use the EFI entry point. When starting dom0, Xen uses the native entry point (the one that UBoot uses) and hands dom0 a device-tree node. The reason this is possible on ARM is that there are no assumptions made about what hardware is or is not present on the system -- everything that needs to be communicated about what is or is not present can be passed in DT. So it is incorrect to say that ARM has an "EFI entry only" position. (On ACPI systems, it does apparently generate some UEFI informational tables, which it passes to the dom0 kernel via DT; and the kernel unpacks and puts in the right place. Normal Xen ARM guests can use EFI, but that's because we start OVMF in the guest context to provide the EFI services. These may be where the idea that ARM guests use only the UEFI entry point came from.) Obviously it would be nice if we could use the native entry point on x86 as well, but there's decades of legacy hardware and backwards compatibility to deal with there. (Julien is a Xen ARM maintainer, he can correct me if I've said something incorrect.) -George