Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] efi: Introduce EFI_DIRECT flag

[Matt Fleming]

On Mon, 19 May, at 11:02:55PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> 
> It is correct. As I said earlier: in case of !efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT) some
> structures are created artificially and they live in virtual address space.
> So that is why they should not be mapped.
 
So, exploring Jan's idea, is it not possible to store the physical
address and have early_ioremap() just work? Even if they're mapping in
virtual address space they must have a corresponding physical address.

We really need to be keeping these kinds of special code paths to a
minimum. Unless absolutely necessary there should be just one way to do
things.

> I was going to have EFI_DIRECT close to EFI_BOOT which is quite generic
> and platform independent name like EFI_BOOT. However, I do not insist
> on having it in that place.

Right, please don't shuffle these bits.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/