Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932429AbbFEJXY (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2015 05:23:24 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:35918 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754238AbbFEJXV (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2015 05:23:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:23:17 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: "Zhang, Jonathan Zhixiong" Cc: Matt Fleming , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, leif.lindholm@linaro.org, al.stone@linaro.org, fu.wei@linaro.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, vgandhi@codeaurora.org, Tony Luck Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] efi: arch, x86: arch, ia64: move efi_mem_attributes() Message-ID: <20150605092317.GE6826@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1433185940-24770-1-git-send-email-zjzhang@codeaurora.org> <1433185940-24770-2-git-send-email-zjzhang@codeaurora.org> <20150602133647.GC6826@codeblueprint.co.uk> <556E45AA.9050802@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <556E45AA.9050802@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1401 Lines: 37 On Tue, 02 Jun, at 05:09:14PM, Zhang, Jonathan Zhixiong wrote: > Thank you for the feedback, Matt. > > Given that IA64 does not set EFI_MEMMAP, it appears to me there > are following options: > A. Keep status quota and copy x86's efi_mem_attributes() code > to arm64. Let's avoid this option. > B. In efi subsystem, provide week default efi_mem_attributes(). > In the mean time, IA64 continues to have its own implementation. While I'm not a huge fan of using __weak this makes the most sense to me because the alternative is to rename either the ia64 or x86 implementation and that just seems silly. > C. Add EFI_MEMMAP support (and related bits) in IA64. C. isn't an option because the ia64 memory map doesn't work the same way as x86 and arm64. > Which option do you prefer? Once there is a consensus, I am > willing to submit patch accordingly for review. Let's go with B. but please provide a comment above the weak implementation explaining *why* it's declared as weak and that any new architecture probably doesn't want to override it. Explain that the ia64 EFI memory map is special. -- 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/