Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1384172

Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt templates

Path csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt templates
Date Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:00:03 +0200
Message-ID <rqmn9-Rq-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <rql7I-8rt-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <rql7I-8rt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqlho-8vU-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition inline
User-Agent Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved robomod@news.nic.it
Lines 98
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:55:07 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID <20160421125507.GM6879@leverpostej>
X-Original-References <1461238529-12810-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <1461238529-12810-2-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20160421114256.GP2904@bivouac.eciton.net>
X-Original-Sender linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref csiph.com linux.kernel:1384172

Show key headers only | View raw


On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:42:56PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:35:25PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Currently each architecture must implement two macros, efi_call_virt and
> > __efi_call_virt, which only differ by the presence or absence of a
> > return type. Otherwise, the logic surrounding the call is identical.
> > 
> > As each architecture must define the entire body of each, we can't place
> > any generic manipulation (e.g. irq flag validation) in the middle.
> > 
> > This patch adds template implementations of these macros. With these,
> > arch code can implement three template macros, avoiding reptition for
> > the void/non-void return cases:
> > 
> > * arch_efi_call_virt_setup
> > 
> >   Sets up the environment for the call (e.g. switching page tables,
> >   allowing kernel-mode use of floating point, if required).
> > 
> > * arch_efi_call_virt
> > 
> >   Performs the call. The last expression in the macro must be the call
> >   itself, allowing the logic to be shared by the void and non-void
> >   cases.
> > 
> > * arch_efi_call_virt_teardown
> > 
> >   Restores the usual kernel environment once the call has returned.
> > 
> > While the savings from repition are minimal, we additionally gain the
> > ability to add common code around the call with the call enviroment set
> > up. This can be used to detect common firmware issues (e.g. bad irq mask
> > management).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> > Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c
> > index de69530..1b9fa54 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,27 @@
> >  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> >  #include <asm/efi.h>
> >  
> > +
> > +#ifndef efi_call_virt
> 
> So ... not a strong complaint, but I would prefer if these weren't
> ifdefd. I presume this is because ia64?

Yup, and to allow the gradual migration of arm/arm64/x86 without a new
CONFIG_WANT_GENERIC_EFI_CALL_VIRT or something to that effect.

> Could that be given a dummy pass-through version instead?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?

> If not, could a comment be added that this is to retain compatibility
> with ia64 (so that if that architecture was to mysteriously disappear
> from the tree, someone might remember to deconditionalise it)?

Sure. I can also add a note to the commit message regarding the
temporary need while arm/arm64/x86 are moved over.

Thanks,
Mark.

> > +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...)					\
> > +({									\
> > +	efi_status_t __s;						\
> > +	arch_efi_call_virt_setup();					\
> > +	__s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args);				\
> > +	arch_efi_call_virt_teardown();					\
> > +	__s;								\
> > +})
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#ifndef __efi_call_virt
> > +#define __efi_call_virt(f, args...)					\
> > +({									\
> > +	arch_efi_call_virt_setup();					\
> > +	arch_efi_call_virt(f, args);					\
> > +	arch_efi_call_virt_teardown();					\
> > +})
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
> >   * reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
> > -- 
> > 1.9.1
> > 
> 

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt templates Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-21 13:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt  templates Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> - 2016-04-21 13:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt  templates Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-21 15:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt  templates Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-21 16:30 +0200

csiph-web