[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] arm/efi: Use dom0less configuration when using EFI boot
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- From: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:23:11 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=QSxEyE53U20d4hvbj9ZxTr2LRWp2djw+W1PTiXIolDQ=; b=CD0QAWv9pnsyvgkjxBS9EKT1ANA1Biqs2RhqCq3ZJqWBTTEdOhK98d0XivR5QTTP8VsZP41BvtAt3dLIKJ8sqDQoAkpXBvs4+mHrhjyAhFCUF65oxFihRBmYKGorYjyiwlUGQ0gs6FpVOJ4CXjVV2xmAQ1SdqKVIVP5OkVvZWRMXwEm/glnFX58WjUmj3HAe3lcufuXPGYgn/AIsseZJOy1gqYyKvAupc3V3IyjoxUJie+z7uHjTqyTJJWVSta5RHHJfWC+RzGyy3KhrasUvwsSGyAedYPff/47YpPH7/vASs2tTo0fwdojK2RFpU+dlZhin5NDVWRtKYYv05Ut67A==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=BIEbvRYAvskhKamCrbiQlVAYeqXt1bc7vb/ocSAZZOKeIV0xvKbUffYvLPaKsHLi3E+fWW8LNXLWTCzHyd/qWR9WrKDVQXxWtia3JVqJPsVEFnXMMYO5jI/V6tUrmWjQ9W70FtAIO3e/kvwKd7fQmtVvmRHZ4vsSxd+MUZM4j23raGlmnT4L7porcOedl/c9busvfVMiNoXmc6iPYXPTyHH8zEetjy6slV29j60UxYjPuWLSNNkRZJxKwhJpE/rKEFmEV7nS8bPsk4lcm0fovfBZIbvibI4XRrbVRhg4FUmPjWvFEAY4h56pw7XpW3uScyJUz86U3fcF6+LqVouG+Q==
- Authentication-results-original: xen.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;xen.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, wei.chen@xxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 11:23:39 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Nodisclaimer: true
- Original-authentication-results: xen.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;xen.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
> On 11 Oct 2021, at 10:39, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Luca,
>
Hi Julien,
> On 11/10/2021 09:03, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> +static bool __init is_boot_module(int dt_module_offset)
>> +{
>> + if ( (fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, dt_module_offset,
>> + "multiboot,kernel") == 0) ||
>> + (fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, dt_module_offset,
>> + "multiboot,ramdisk") == 0) ||
>> + (fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, dt_module_offset,
>> + "multiboot,device-tree") == 0) )
>> + return true;
>
> A boot module *must* have the compatible "multiboot,module". I would prefer
> if we simply check that "multiboot,module" is present.
>
> This will also make easier to add new boot module in the future.
I thought that also the XSM policy was a multiboot,module so I checked
explicitly for kernel, ramdisk, device-tree that are supported
by domU.
Do you still think that I should check just for multiboot,module instead?
Cheers,
Luca
>
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
|
