Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230426034001.16-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> <CAMj1kXEKh9O-ndk3QFibJMYfMbG7vm-cLN2vVQM5eDsYK84NzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEEQ3wkJB5CKm33mHXUOPX5makYOHF8By6FYGnNzRkM-Mo72OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZEj33QLZqEeL+/y4@FVFF77S0Q05N> <CAEEQ3wmDBJkfOeKCQfcnuE+1=1K0D2pzu+Sn+zPEWk+RHs0NFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP6exY+ydbzh1EkWTFejzwaW+PA-ySVO2Qj+CVJ1XbSMce2S9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP6exY+tqAU0j1TVEMTzTb18M6_mPH5bWWiAS=94gyDGTY3hyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEEQ3w=wBdpZWnUd2WWVBC3BtFiUp-PQtNAtdXE4cO4n0XT-fg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEEQ3w=wBdpZWnUd2WWVBC3BtFiUp-PQtNAtdXE4cO4n0XT-fg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 24 Jun 2023 14:52:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXFGpXEPtYpy1+bs13F2P_LLZf9rTMfYMU=6jzgd3=SEcw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] firmware: added a firmware information
 passing method FFI
To:     =?UTF-8?B?6L+Q6L6J5bSU?= <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com>
Cc:     ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>, rafael@kernel.org,
        lenb@kernel.org, jdelvare@suse.com, yc.hung@mediatek.com,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com,
        allen-kh.cheng@mediatek.com, pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com,
        tinghan.shen@mediatek.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, geshijian@bytedance.com,
        weidong.wd@bytedance.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 10:04, =E8=BF=90=E8=BE=89=E5=B4=94 <cuiyunhui@byteda=
nce.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for Ron's suggestions.
>
> Hi Ard,  Mark,
> >
> > Is there some feeling here that it would be ok to restrict this discuss=
ion to risc-v, and not bring in ARM considerations.  WDYT?
> >
>
> Hi Ard,  Mark,
>
> Now the coreboot we are using does not support EFI and only supports
> one interface DTB. It seems that we have to pass the firmware
> information through DTB.
>
> From another point of view, ACPI and SMBIOS are common modules of the
> kernel, not only EFI, but also other interfaces can also be connected
> to this module, such as 0xF0000 for SMBIOS,
> CONFIG_ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP for ACPI,  this patch is also.
>
> We just use the DTB channel to add a few nodes to complete the
> transfer of firmware information, which does not interfere with DTS
> itself.
>
> We think it is unnecessary to add an ACPI-supporting framework under
> the fdt framework we discussed before. We only need one set of ACPI
> framework, but one more set will cause unnecessary trouble.
>
> So, let's move on to this patch, shall we?
>

How do you intend to provide the ACPI core with the memory attribute
information that it needs to access SystemMemory OpRegions?