Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: arm: [U]EFI runtime services

[Leif Lindholm]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:32:19AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:38:19AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The fixed virtual address scheme currently being looked at for x86_64 to
> > make SetVirtualAddressMap() kexec invariant doesn't work on 32 bit
> > because the address space isn't big enough.  For ARM, given that we've
> > much more opportunity to work with the vendors, can we just avoid
> > transitioning to a virtual address map and always just install a
> > physical mapping before doing efi calls?
> 
> We can probably get away with that now, but it does risk us ending up 
> with some firmware that expects to run in physical mode (boards designed 
> for Linux) and some firmware that expects to run in virtual mode (boards 
> designed for Windows). The degree of lockdown in the Windows ecosystem 
> at present means it's not a real problem at the moment, but if that ever 
> changes we're going to risk incompatibility.

Is there anything preventing calling SetVirtualAddressMap() with a
1:1 map?

Or do you simply mean that some platforms might cruise along with
undetected bugs in their relocation hooks?

/
    Leif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/