Message-ID: <5571D1E8.7040709@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 09:44:24 -0700
From: "Zhang, Jonathan Zhixiong" <zjzhang@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
CC: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, 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 <tony.luck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] efi: arch, x86: arch, ia64: move efi_mem_attributes()
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> <20150605092317.GE6826@codeblueprint.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150605092317.GE6826@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1637
Lines: 46

Sure, I will got with B with clear comment.

Thanks,
Jonathan

On 6/5/2015 2:23 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 
Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/