From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpvHQ-00034V-Hc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:15:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpvHM-0007lw-JY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:15:16 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]:35911) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpvHM-0007le-Ey for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:15:12 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id w124so84519555itb.1 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 04:15:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1489414630-21609-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:15:11 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] hw/arm/boot: take Linux/arm64 TEXT_OFFSET header field into account List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , Mark Rutland On 20 March 2017 at 11:13, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 13 March 2017 at 14:17, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> The arm64 boot protocol stipulates that the kernel must be loaded >> TEXT_OFFSET bytes beyond a 2 MB aligned base address, where TEXT_OFFSET >> could be any 4 KB multiple between 0 and 2 MB, and whose value can be >> found in the header of the Image file. >> >> So after attempts to load the arm64 kernel image as an ELF file or as a >> U-Boot image have failed (both of which have their own way of specifying >> the load offset), try to determine the TEXT_OFFSET from the image after >> loading it but before mapping it as a ROM mapping into the guest address >> space. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel >> --- >> v2: split off AArch64 specific loader logic regarding gzipped/raw and variable >> load offset into a separate helper function, which removes the need for >> loading the image twice > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell > Thanks > Since we're due to tag rc1 tomorrow and this is kind of on the > border between bugfix and new feature, I think I'd rather > defer it to 2.10, unless you have a strong view that it should > go into 2.9. > I will leave that to you to decide, I don't feel strongly either way