From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757451AbaHGGTT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:19:19 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62387 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757371AbaHGGSu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:18:50 -0400
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 14:19:45 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] UEFI arm64: add noefi boot param
Message-ID: <20140807061945.GE20295@darkstar.nay.redhat.com>
References: <20140806083825.GA31711@dhcp-16-198.nay.redhat.com>
 <20140806130623.GI4179@bivouac.eciton.net>
 <20140806132021.GB15082@console-pimps.org>
 <20140806132941.GJ4179@bivouac.eciton.net>
 <20140806140155.GC15082@console-pimps.org>
 <CAKv+Gu8ey1iKu-_wS6yYaEXQaQMDXa+PF5Kiw+edA9a_OE1EAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140806141814.GD15082@console-pimps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140806141814.GD15082@console-pimps.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/06/14 at 03:18pm, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug, at 04:10:45PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > 
> > Shouldn't we clear the bit here if we failed to enable runtime
> > services for some reason? Other code may test the bit assuming that it
> > signifies that runtime services have been enabled successfully, while
> > this patch changes it to mean that we /intended/ to enable them, which
> > is not quite the same thing.
> 
> Yep, good catch. We need to do something similar for efi_runtime_init()
> on x86 too.

The current efi_runtime_init() enables the bit after getting the efi callback
phyaddr of SetVirtualAddressMap.

Thinking more about it, since SetVirtualAddressMap() could fail somehow it
seems better to set EFI_RUNTIME_SERIVCES bit only when enter virtual mode
return EFI_SUCCESS.

Does it make sense to you, Matt?

Thanks
Dave