From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: geoff@infradead.org (Geoff Levand) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:21:09 -0700 Subject: Kexec on arm64 In-Reply-To: References: <1406162287.4062.39.camel@smoke> <20140724093603.GC4079@leverpostej> <1406247468.4062.59.camel@smoke> <1406333901.4062.69.camel@smoke> <20140728153812.GA2576@leverpostej> <1406592548.28348.49.camel@smoke> <20140729133557.GQ2576@leverpostej> <1406668741.28348.75.camel@smoke> Message-ID: <1407172869.8971.54.camel@smoke> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Arun, On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 15:46 +0530, Arun Chandran wrote: > The latest kexec code is working fine in LE/BE mode in UP configuration. > > I had to change kexec-tools code a bit to make sure that "kexec -l" > is not putting dtb at an area where kernel is building its initial page > tables. OK, I'll add in code to handle this. > Now before trying SMP configuration I want to know whether the below "kexec -e" > scenarios are valid(required)? > > 1st stage | 2nd stage > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > LE UP | BE UP > LE UP | BE SMP > LE UP | LE SMP > LE SMP | LE UP > LE SMP | BE UP > LE SMP | BE SMP Kexec should work for all combinations of kernel options. A bootloader (1st stage) may want to be UP, and custom crash dump kernels (2nd stage) are generally UP. UP->UP may have limited use. I think all these listed are important to test though, and going the other way also, so BE-SMP->LE-SMP for example. -Geoff