From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967087AbaFROa4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:30:56 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:43478 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966703AbaFROaw (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:30:52 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,501,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="144622490" Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:30:25 +0100 From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@kaball.uk.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich CC: Matt Fleming , Daniel Kiper , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] efi: Introduce EFI_NO_DIRECT flag In-Reply-To: <53A1B726020000780001B6CF@mail.emea.novell.com> Message-ID: References: <1402678823-24589-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <1402678823-24589-3-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <20140618135229.GH24049@console-pimps.org> <53A1B726020000780001B6CF@mail.emea.novell.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 18.06.14 at 15:52, wrote: > > EFI_PARAVIRT will be usable by architectures other than x86, correct? If > > your intention is for it only ever to be used by x86, then it should > > probably be EFI_ARCH_2. > > I would expect ARM, once it gets UEFI support on the Xen side, to > be able to handle most of this identically to x86. Which raises the > question whether most of the new Xen-specific code (in one of the > other patches) wouldn't better live under drivers/xen/. I was thinking the same thing. However this patch series doesn't add much code outside drivers/xen/efi.c and include/xen/interface/platform.h. I think it wouldn't be fair to ask Daniel to refactor the efi code currently under arch/x86 to an arch-independent location. Whoever comes in later and adds EFI Xen support for ARM can do that. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] efi: Introduce EFI_NO_DIRECT flag Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:30:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1402678823-24589-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <1402678823-24589-3-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <20140618135229.GH24049@console-pimps.org> <53A1B726020000780001B6CF@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53A1B726020000780001B6CF-tRfBTM6QL9aeHWOVceGJHFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Matt Fleming , Daniel Kiper , andrew.cooper3-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, david.vrabel-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, ian.campbell-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, stefano.stabellini-mvvWK6WmYclDPfheJLI6IQ@public.gmane.org, jeremy-TSDbQ3PG+2Y@public.gmane.org, matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org, xen-devel-GuqFBffKawtpuQazS67q72D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, boris.ostrovsky-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, konrad.wilk-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, eshelton-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 18.06.14 at 15:52, wrote: > > EFI_PARAVIRT will be usable by architectures other than x86, correct? If > > your intention is for it only ever to be used by x86, then it should > > probably be EFI_ARCH_2. > > I would expect ARM, once it gets UEFI support on the Xen side, to > be able to handle most of this identically to x86. Which raises the > question whether most of the new Xen-specific code (in one of the > other patches) wouldn't better live under drivers/xen/. I was thinking the same thing. However this patch series doesn't add much code outside drivers/xen/efi.c and include/xen/interface/platform.h. I think it wouldn't be fair to ask Daniel to refactor the efi code currently under arch/x86 to an arch-independent location. Whoever comes in later and adds EFI Xen support for ARM can do that.