From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD2BC433E2 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:56:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222BD221E3 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:56:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1599811018; bh=F5TrbPqKC0AzQwIasaLkQvgumENW4CTedW9jbQ9YqYY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=X6Q4ppLzHN3+IdgiwbdJw6NXs4kmVeUeRachHYd9DcdIv4rvHkLOoCoXJvEFXAmxc /M6U/BHJ7K1kmN7JfWrVtC4babOOgHn9RshVePcz/wTNdkh3ANO0K73K51nNB3eDrB kBb9h/D6ngqe41o+QGqAu7Cs/sglrihtVTHkwdXY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725468AbgIKH45 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 03:56:57 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:49616 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725535AbgIKH44 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 03:56:56 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f180.google.com (mail-oi1-f180.google.com [209.85.167.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E91D2220E for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:56:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1599811015; bh=F5TrbPqKC0AzQwIasaLkQvgumENW4CTedW9jbQ9YqYY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=TTk9d1LuSE+gnomWCaMSRkXDqJ3JOIOemLMan3n8zPCMwNp9c5o+lq/iX59tw2+U5 aWLAhLxEUHayUb0/Zeye64IOP1H+pDeaCOtxtSgDgvZPdStlwck35HOyFA2XA+iMZ4 82dID/M8ZziGXPAd1aefVWbXV7OZhq5bnQpPyfiA= Received: by mail-oi1-f180.google.com with SMTP id t76so8612360oif.7 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:56:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530w23MZDNpM53LDBMoML3VIBTNY9I9IvDosTUOSomzBm8ykWMF2 FWYi2JsSnnu4VHd3WXfE67uJxOQcQm7zsqe2WmE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEp0x5TpWNVUKTFjS7dROInBuY7PdOaMjl0UKlS34ZnI6hBwAo3VXwmfXcBYPDkI2RWm2H5ZjQpUIJ7yfSxIA= X-Received: by 2002:aca:d845:: with SMTP id p66mr530145oig.47.1599811014639; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:56:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:56:43 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT 0/3] efi/libstub: arm32: Remove dependency on dram_base To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: Atish Patra , linux-efi , Linux ARM , Maxim Uvarov , Heinrich Schuchardt , Atish Patra , Jens Wiklander , =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Ozog?= , Etienne CARRIERE , Takahiro Akashi , Patrice CHOTARD , Sumit Garg , Grant Likely , Ilias Apalodimas , Christophe Priouzeau , Rouven Czerwinski , Patrick Delaunay Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 05:16, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:08:07 PDT (-0700), ardb@kernel.org wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 13:04, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 04:34, Atish Patra wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:44 PM Atish Patra wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:52 PM Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 08:16:20 PDT (-0700), ardb@kernel.org wrote: > >> > > > > Maxim reports boot failures on platforms that describe reserved memory > >> > > > > regions in DT that are disjoint from system DRAM, and which are converted > >> > > > > to EfiReservedMemory regions by the EFI subsystem in u-boot. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > As it turns out, the whole notion of discovering the base of DRAM is > >> > > > > problematic, and it would be better to simply rely on the EFI memory > >> > > > > allocation routines instead, and derive the FDT and initrd allocation > >> > > > > limits from the actual placement of the kernel (which is what defines > >> > > > > the start of the linear region anyway) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Finally, we should be able to get rid of get_dram_base() entirely. > >> > > > > However, as RISC-V only just started using it, we will need to address > >> > > > > that at a later time. > >> > > > > >> > > > Looks like we're using dram_base to derive two argumets to > >> > > > efi_relocate_kernel(): the preferred load address and the minimum load address. > >> > > > I don't see any reason why we can't use the same PAGE_OFFSET-like logic that > >> > > > x86 uses for the minimum load address, but I don't think we have any mechanism > >> > > > like "struct boot_params" so we'd need to come up with something. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > As discussed in the other thread > >> > > (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-efi/msg20262.html), > >> > > we don't need to do anything special. efi_relocate_kernel can just > >> > > take preferred address as 0 > >> > > so that efi_bs_alloc will fail and efi_low_alloc_above will be used to > >> > > allocate 2MB/4MB aligned address as per requirement. > >> > > > >> > > I don't think the other changes in this series will cause any issue > >> > > for RISC-V. I will test it and update anyways. > >> > > > >> > > > > Cc: Maxim Uvarov > >> > > > > Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt > >> > > > > Cc: Atish Patra > >> > > > > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt > >> > > > > Cc: Jens Wiklander > >> > > > > Cc: Francois Ozog > >> > > > > Cc: Etienne CARRIERE > >> > > > > Cc: Takahiro Akashi > >> > > > > Cc: Patrice CHOTARD > >> > > > > Cc: Sumit Garg > >> > > > > Cc: Grant Likely > >> > > > > Cc: Ilias Apalodimas > >> > > > > Cc: Christophe Priouzeau > >> > > > > Cc: Rouven Czerwinski > >> > > > > Cc: Patrick DELAUNAY > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Ard Biesheuvel (3): > >> > > > > efi/libstub: Export efi_low_alloc_above() to other units > >> > > > > efi/libstub: Use low allocation for the uncompressed kernel > >> > > > > efi/libstub: base FDT and initrd placement on image address not DRAM > >> > > > > base > >> > > > > > >> > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h | 6 +- > >> > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h | 2 +- > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm32-stub.c | 177 ++++---------------- > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub.c | 2 +- > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efistub.h | 3 + > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/relocate.c | 4 +- > >> > > > > 6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 147 deletions(-) > >> > > > >> > > >> > I verified the above patches along with the following RISC-V specific changes. > >> > > >> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h > >> > index 93c305a638f4..dd6ceea9d548 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h > >> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h > >> > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static inline unsigned long > >> > efi_get_max_fdt_addr(unsigned long dram_base) > >> > static inline unsigned long efi_get_max_initrd_addr(unsigned long dram_base, > >> > unsigned long image_addr) > >> > { > >> > - return dram_base + SZ_256M; > >> > + return image_addr + SZ_256M; > >> > } > >> > > >> > >> Ah yes, we need this change as well - this is a bit unfortunate since > >> that creates a conflict with the RISC-V tree. > >> > >> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c > >> > @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ efi_status_t handle_kernel_image(unsigned long *image_addr, > >> > */ > >> > preferred_addr = round_up(dram_base, MIN_KIMG_ALIGN) + MIN_KIMG_ALIGN; > >> > status = efi_relocate_kernel(image_addr, kernel_size, *image_size, > >> > - preferred_addr, MIN_KIMG_ALIGN, dram_base); > >> > + 0, MIN_KIMG_ALIGN, 0); > >> > > >> > FWIW: Tested-by: Atish Patra > >> > >> Thanks for confirming. > > > > OK, > > > > So, just to annoy Palmer and you more than I already have up to this > > point: any chance we could do a final respin of the RISC-V code on top > > of these changes? They are important for ARM, and I would prefer these > > to be merged in a way that makes it easy to backport them to -stable > > if needed. > > > > So what I would suggest is: > > - I will create a new 'shared-efi' tag/stable branch containing the > > existing two patches, as well as these changes (in a slightly updated > > form) > > - Palmer creates a new topic branch in the riscv repo based on this > > shared tag, and applies the [updated] RISC-V patches on top > > - Palmer drops the current version of the riscv patches from > > riscv/for-next, and merges the topic branch into it instead. > > > > Again, sorry to be a pain, but I think this is the cleanest way to get > > these changes queued up for v5.10 without painting ourselves into a > > corner too much when it comes to future follow-up changes. > > That's fine for me. Excellent. I have created a signed tag efi-riscv-shared-for-v5.10 in the EFI repo [0], which is based on v5.9-rc1. Please merge that at the start of your for-next/efi topic branch, and apply the reworked EFI for RISC-V series on top. I have created a preliminary version of that branch as 'riscv-tmp' on [1], incorporating some changes that are needed for the rebase. Note that I applied some other tweaks as well - one is in a separate patch on top, the other is that I omitted the Makefile rule for .stub.o objects under arch/riscv/Makefile, as it is not actually used. Atish - please pick whatever seems useful to you from that branch when you do the respin. Thanks, Ard. [0] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ardb/linux.git From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12CDC433E2 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:58:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A943221E3 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:58:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="Lf1Q0aA5"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TTk9d1Lu" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7A943221E3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:In-Reply-To: References:MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=Aag0eMc8mwpWPig/Z8eI6EBF1/aqCVQqZEMldQT2nyA=; b=Lf1Q0aA5qwsM+BggWE3aLaUZx aaLnNi5/RwbXmcA58vwOKXLg+mBr4dpyRpF6KG6w36hDnFrlFyQC5/t+ttJFXxxKxwRlrOvJeFOio vhuSAusqEzlR0Nln91poiz/w+7B4Be35oMEbXBZ7WolT4J01+TlMZ1FdKUt5/U7Pb6IWRqRG77Y22 LT0wDZ3hegtldc+gYqDlskZJmNJMuw7ltz7BljW4YkUCu3lPnQQVbDXA6+01cGSIA3J8vYSSemZ0U pvBGBxSB1PsviZGMVe5FpGNIY6qyi625SYrPSBfp4iQU5Hm6XzH87jefIznLQxQIhTKgPjsAnSpoC Dtpswu13g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kGdvX-0002cB-NE; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:56:59 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kGdvU-0002bi-Sy for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:56:57 +0000 Received: from mail-oi1-f176.google.com (mail-oi1-f176.google.com [209.85.167.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7742F2220A for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:56:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1599811015; bh=F5TrbPqKC0AzQwIasaLkQvgumENW4CTedW9jbQ9YqYY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=TTk9d1LuSE+gnomWCaMSRkXDqJ3JOIOemLMan3n8zPCMwNp9c5o+lq/iX59tw2+U5 aWLAhLxEUHayUb0/Zeye64IOP1H+pDeaCOtxtSgDgvZPdStlwck35HOyFA2XA+iMZ4 82dID/M8ZziGXPAd1aefVWbXV7OZhq5bnQpPyfiA= Received: by mail-oi1-f176.google.com with SMTP id i17so8615840oig.10 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:56:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pFjJpEzeNhu1Tavkvus5ftl3ldrSl2RP3x6CUDYnUg/XeCmbV n3TD8PD5m+AP/4tVvHVMoPxEvneEoZoT4IM6JO8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEp0x5TpWNVUKTFjS7dROInBuY7PdOaMjl0UKlS34ZnI6hBwAo3VXwmfXcBYPDkI2RWm2H5ZjQpUIJ7yfSxIA= X-Received: by 2002:aca:d845:: with SMTP id p66mr530145oig.47.1599811014639; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:56:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:56:43 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT 0/3] efi/libstub: arm32: Remove dependency on dram_base To: Palmer Dabbelt X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200911_035657_093088_A5E54D35 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 54.23 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Etienne CARRIERE , =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Ozog?= , Maxim Uvarov , Grant Likely , Takahiro Akashi , Rouven Czerwinski , Heinrich Schuchardt , Ilias Apalodimas , Patrice CHOTARD , Patrick Delaunay , Atish Patra , linux-efi , Atish Patra , Christophe Priouzeau , Jens Wiklander , Linux ARM , Sumit Garg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 05:16, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:08:07 PDT (-0700), ardb@kernel.org wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 13:04, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 04:34, Atish Patra wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:44 PM Atish Patra wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:52 PM Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 08:16:20 PDT (-0700), ardb@kernel.org wrote: > >> > > > > Maxim reports boot failures on platforms that describe reserved memory > >> > > > > regions in DT that are disjoint from system DRAM, and which are converted > >> > > > > to EfiReservedMemory regions by the EFI subsystem in u-boot. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > As it turns out, the whole notion of discovering the base of DRAM is > >> > > > > problematic, and it would be better to simply rely on the EFI memory > >> > > > > allocation routines instead, and derive the FDT and initrd allocation > >> > > > > limits from the actual placement of the kernel (which is what defines > >> > > > > the start of the linear region anyway) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Finally, we should be able to get rid of get_dram_base() entirely. > >> > > > > However, as RISC-V only just started using it, we will need to address > >> > > > > that at a later time. > >> > > > > >> > > > Looks like we're using dram_base to derive two argumets to > >> > > > efi_relocate_kernel(): the preferred load address and the minimum load address. > >> > > > I don't see any reason why we can't use the same PAGE_OFFSET-like logic that > >> > > > x86 uses for the minimum load address, but I don't think we have any mechanism > >> > > > like "struct boot_params" so we'd need to come up with something. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > As discussed in the other thread > >> > > (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-efi/msg20262.html), > >> > > we don't need to do anything special. efi_relocate_kernel can just > >> > > take preferred address as 0 > >> > > so that efi_bs_alloc will fail and efi_low_alloc_above will be used to > >> > > allocate 2MB/4MB aligned address as per requirement. > >> > > > >> > > I don't think the other changes in this series will cause any issue > >> > > for RISC-V. I will test it and update anyways. > >> > > > >> > > > > Cc: Maxim Uvarov > >> > > > > Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt > >> > > > > Cc: Atish Patra > >> > > > > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt > >> > > > > Cc: Jens Wiklander > >> > > > > Cc: Francois Ozog > >> > > > > Cc: Etienne CARRIERE > >> > > > > Cc: Takahiro Akashi > >> > > > > Cc: Patrice CHOTARD > >> > > > > Cc: Sumit Garg > >> > > > > Cc: Grant Likely > >> > > > > Cc: Ilias Apalodimas > >> > > > > Cc: Christophe Priouzeau > >> > > > > Cc: Rouven Czerwinski > >> > > > > Cc: Patrick DELAUNAY > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Ard Biesheuvel (3): > >> > > > > efi/libstub: Export efi_low_alloc_above() to other units > >> > > > > efi/libstub: Use low allocation for the uncompressed kernel > >> > > > > efi/libstub: base FDT and initrd placement on image address not DRAM > >> > > > > base > >> > > > > > >> > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/efi.h | 6 +- > >> > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h | 2 +- > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm32-stub.c | 177 ++++---------------- > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub.c | 2 +- > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efistub.h | 3 + > >> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/relocate.c | 4 +- > >> > > > > 6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 147 deletions(-) > >> > > > >> > > >> > I verified the above patches along with the following RISC-V specific changes. > >> > > >> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h > >> > index 93c305a638f4..dd6ceea9d548 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h > >> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/efi.h > >> > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static inline unsigned long > >> > efi_get_max_fdt_addr(unsigned long dram_base) > >> > static inline unsigned long efi_get_max_initrd_addr(unsigned long dram_base, > >> > unsigned long image_addr) > >> > { > >> > - return dram_base + SZ_256M; > >> > + return image_addr + SZ_256M; > >> > } > >> > > >> > >> Ah yes, we need this change as well - this is a bit unfortunate since > >> that creates a conflict with the RISC-V tree. > >> > >> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/riscv-stub.c > >> > @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ efi_status_t handle_kernel_image(unsigned long *image_addr, > >> > */ > >> > preferred_addr = round_up(dram_base, MIN_KIMG_ALIGN) + MIN_KIMG_ALIGN; > >> > status = efi_relocate_kernel(image_addr, kernel_size, *image_size, > >> > - preferred_addr, MIN_KIMG_ALIGN, dram_base); > >> > + 0, MIN_KIMG_ALIGN, 0); > >> > > >> > FWIW: Tested-by: Atish Patra > >> > >> Thanks for confirming. > > > > OK, > > > > So, just to annoy Palmer and you more than I already have up to this > > point: any chance we could do a final respin of the RISC-V code on top > > of these changes? They are important for ARM, and I would prefer these > > to be merged in a way that makes it easy to backport them to -stable > > if needed. > > > > So what I would suggest is: > > - I will create a new 'shared-efi' tag/stable branch containing the > > existing two patches, as well as these changes (in a slightly updated > > form) > > - Palmer creates a new topic branch in the riscv repo based on this > > shared tag, and applies the [updated] RISC-V patches on top > > - Palmer drops the current version of the riscv patches from > > riscv/for-next, and merges the topic branch into it instead. > > > > Again, sorry to be a pain, but I think this is the cleanest way to get > > these changes queued up for v5.10 without painting ourselves into a > > corner too much when it comes to future follow-up changes. > > That's fine for me. Excellent. I have created a signed tag efi-riscv-shared-for-v5.10 in the EFI repo [0], which is based on v5.9-rc1. Please merge that at the start of your for-next/efi topic branch, and apply the reworked EFI for RISC-V series on top. I have created a preliminary version of that branch as 'riscv-tmp' on [1], incorporating some changes that are needed for the rebase. Note that I applied some other tweaks as well - one is in a separate patch on top, the other is that I omitted the Makefile rule for .stub.o objects under arch/riscv/Makefile, as it is not actually used. Atish - please pick whatever seems useful to you from that branch when you do the respin. Thanks, Ard. [0] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ardb/linux.git _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel