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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7275FC433F5 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (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 3205C608FB for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 3205C608FB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.206406.361962 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZz6T-0007Q8-IS; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:45 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 206406.361962; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZz6T-0007Q1-FG; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:45 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 206406; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:44 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mZz6S-0007Ps-0h for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:44 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org (unknown [198.145.29.99]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 735cb9ed-2ea4-48ac-990c-2295ab3066d4; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDF6560E74; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:28:41 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 735cb9ed-2ea4-48ac-990c-2295ab3066d4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1633973322; bh=Cah+iOgRJ3+IJpmZPQz4AydeW78R31RwlS60HcfXfdA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=AXzWmOVv28jzGY4LD3yeoz7nRzfxYiHB8xqi/QrgrT3G3EiCH7wcr4/cuF9828rMC VEu1wYMaWB7YgjV55d1OMtqVjXZglrhD2+9vjM5YanFUdMZtDW46bGA4eHPrqrpnxE 4nrOPL7xZvdwaVjMnePxkeK0ZtW6dRFSXBKVZh6uy6GBAi+KOk+CDHIgcJOfrjHPvG 92L2MO02YYljVOOXQQRC4kLkNg5zBMxthzpybLvNZ0/awD+GqAbaByLM6kHQRi2YvE 5RBWMkZ+EaRTOwKxMcAUInkKj/Wmce4FfCXTa+pL4PLPPZiPpNxOYxj1WD+cRL2Fju WtNFdytRSo2+g== Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s To: Bertrand Marquis cc: Jan Beulich , Luca Fancellu , Wei Chen , Stefano Stabellini , Julien Grall , Volodymyr Babchuk , Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Wei Liu , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] arm/efi: Use dom0less configuration when using EFI boot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20211011080302.24203-1-luca.fancellu@arm.com> <20211011080302.24203-2-luca.fancellu@arm.com> <9D5D9F7A-F399-4C8C-80A6-C3B8452729D0@arm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > Hi Jan, > > > On 11 Oct 2021, at 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 11.10.2021 10:50, Luca Fancellu wrote: > >>> On 11 Oct 2021, at 09:11, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.10.2021 10:03, Luca Fancellu wrote: > >>>> This patch introduces the support for dom0less configuration > >>>> when using UEFI boot on ARM, it permits the EFI boot to > >>>> continue if no dom0 kernel is specified but at least one domU > >>>> is found. > >>>> > >>>> Introduce the new property "xen,uefi-binary" for device tree boot > >>>> module nodes that are subnode of "xen,domain" compatible nodes. > >>>> The property holds a string containing the file name of the > >>>> binary that shall be loaded by the uefi loader from the filesystem. > >>>> > >>>> Introduce a new call efi_check_dt_boot(...) called during EFI boot > >>>> that checks for module to be loaded using device tree. > >>>> Architectures that don't support device tree don't have to > >>>> provide this function. > >>>> > >>>> Update efi documentation about how to start a dom0less > >>>> setup using UEFI > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu > >>>> Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis > >>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini > >>> > >>> Did you get indication that these are fine to retain with ... > >>> > >>>> --- > >>>> Changes in v5: > >>>> - Removed unneeded variable initialization > >>>> - Fixed comment > >>>> - Fixed error message for the absence of an initial domain kernel > >>>> - changed efi_arch_check_dt_boot to efi_check_dt_boot and add > >>>> a stub if CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE is not declared, updated commit > >>>> message about the call introduction in the EFI boot flow. > >>> > >>> ... all of these changes? Every individual change may be minor enough, > >>> but their sum makes me wonder. If so (or if at least one of the two > >>> gets re-offered) > >>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich > >>> albeit preferably with ... > >>> > >>>> --- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c > >>>> +++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c > >>>> @@ -166,6 +166,13 @@ static void __init PrintErr(const CHAR16 *s) > >>>> StdErr->OutputString(StdErr, (CHAR16 *)s ); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE > >>>> +static inline int __init efi_check_dt_boot(EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle) > >>> > >>> ... the "inline" here dropped. We don't normally add this outside of > >>> headers, leaving it to the compiler to decide. In headers it's wanted > >>> to avoid "defined by never used" style warnings. > >> > >> Ok I can drop it in a next serie and retain your Ack, or is it something that > >> can be done on commit? > > > > I guess that's easy enough to do while committing. Provided of course > > the two R-b get confirmed. > > I confirm my R-b. I also confirm my reviewed-by. Also, I am aware of the change suggested by Julien about using multiboot,module for the is_boot_module check and I am fine with it too.