Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:31:31 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86: fixes some bugs about EFI memory map handling
Message-ID: <20080125093131.GG23708@elte.hu>
References: <1201240507.15972.48.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1201240507.15972.48.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1060
Lines: 29


* Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> This patch fixes some bugs of EFI memory handing code.
> 
> - On x86_64, it is possible that EFI memory map can not be mapped via
>   identity map, so efi_map_memmap is removed, just use early_ioremap.
> 
> - On i386, the EFI memory map mapping take effect cross paging_init,
>   so it is not necessary to use efi_map_memmap.
> 
> - EFI memory map is unmapped in efi_enter_virtual_mode to avoid
>   early_ioremap leak.

thanks, applied.

btw., it would be nice to consolidate this some more. Why is there a 
separate efi_ioremap(), which is mapped to ioremap() on 32-bit, and 
which is mapped to a fixmap based special mapper on 64-bit?

To me it appears this wants to be ioremap() on both 64-bit and 32-bit, 
and we could remove efi_ioremap() altogether. Hm?

	Ingo
--
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/