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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1311623 > unrolled thread

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 14/16] Xen: EFI: Parse DT parameters for Xen specific UEFI

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 14/16] Xen: EFI: Parse DT parameters for  Xen specific UEFI Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> - 2016-01-18 16:50 +0100
    Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 14/16] Xen: EFI: Parse DT parameters for  Xen specific UEFI Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> - 2016-01-19 14:30 +0100
      Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 14/16] Xen: EFI: Parse DT parameters for  Xen specific UEFI Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-01-19 14:50 +0100
        Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 14/16] Xen: EFI: Parse DT parameters for  Xen specific UEFI Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> - 2016-01-19 14:50 +0100

#1311623 — Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 14/16] Xen: EFI: Parse DT parameters for Xen specific UEFI

CC'ing Matt Fleming

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
> 
> Add a new function to parse DT parameters for Xen specific UEFI just
> like the way for normal UEFI. Then it could reuse the existing codes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>

Please CC the maintainers, use ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl to find out
who they are.


>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> index 027ca21..2dbc2ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <xen/xen.h>
>  
>  struct efi __read_mostly efi = {
>  	.mps			= EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR,
> @@ -498,12 +499,14 @@ device_initcall(efi_load_efivars);
>  		FIELD_SIZEOF(struct efi_fdt_params, field) \
>  	}
>  
> -static __initdata struct {
> +struct params {
>  	const char name[32];
>  	const char propname[32];
>  	int offset;
>  	int size;
> -} dt_params[] = {
> +};
> +
> +static struct params fdt_params[] __initdata = {
>  	UEFI_PARAM("System Table", "linux,uefi-system-table", system_table),
>  	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Address", "linux,uefi-mmap-start", mmap),
>  	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Size", "linux,uefi-mmap-size", mmap_size),
> @@ -511,6 +514,14 @@ static __initdata struct {
>  	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Desc. Version", "linux,uefi-mmap-desc-ver", desc_ver)
>  };
>  
> +static struct params xen_fdt_params[] __initdata = {
> +	UEFI_PARAM("System Table", "xen,uefi-system-table", system_table),
> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Address", "xen,uefi-mmap-start", mmap),
> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Size", "xen,uefi-mmap-size", mmap_size),
> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Desc. Size", "xen,uefi-mmap-desc-size", desc_size),
> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Desc. Version", "xen,uefi-mmap-desc-ver", desc_ver)
> +};
> +
>  struct param_info {
>  	int found;
>  	void *params;
> @@ -520,15 +531,28 @@ static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>  				       int depth, void *data)
>  {
>  	struct param_info *info = data;
> +	struct params *dt_params;
> +	unsigned int size;
>  	const void *prop;
>  	void *dest;
>  	u64 val;
>  	int i, len;
>  
> -	if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)
> -		return 0;
> +	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT)) {
> +		if (depth != 2 || strcmp(uname, "uefi") != 0)

You are already introducing this check in the previous patch when
setting EFI_PARAVIRT, why do this again now?  But if we need to do this
check again, then, like Mark suggested, it should be done against the
full path.

Also you added below to efi_get_fdt_params:

	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT))
		dt_params = xen_fdt_params;
	else
		dt_params = fdt_params;

efi_get_fdt_params is the sole caller of fdt_find_uefi_params: it makes
sense to set dt_params only once, then pass it to fdt_find_uefi_params
as parameter.


> +			return 0;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dt_params); i++) {
> +		dt_params = xen_fdt_params;
> +		size = ARRAY_SIZE(xen_fdt_params);
> +	} else {
> +		if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)
> +			return 0;
> +
> +		dt_params = fdt_params;
> +		size = ARRAY_SIZE(fdt_params);
> +	}
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
>  		prop = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, dt_params[i].propname, &len);
>  		if (!prop)
>  			return 0;
> @@ -552,6 +576,7 @@ static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>  int __init efi_get_fdt_params(struct efi_fdt_params *params)
>  {
>  	struct param_info info;
> +	struct params *dt_params;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	pr_info("Getting EFI parameters from FDT:\n");
> @@ -559,12 +584,18 @@ int __init efi_get_fdt_params(struct efi_fdt_params *params)
>  	info.found = 0;
>  	info.params = params;
>  
> +	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT))
> +		dt_params = xen_fdt_params;
> +	else
> +		dt_params = fdt_params;
> +
>  	ret = of_scan_flat_dt(fdt_find_uefi_params, &info);
> -	if (!info.found)
> +	if (!info.found) {
>  		pr_info("UEFI not found.\n");
> -	else if (!ret)
> +	} else if (!ret) {
>  		pr_err("Can't find '%s' in device tree!\n",
>  		       dt_params[info.found].name);
> +	}
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.0.4
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1312223

On 2016/1/18 23:41, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> CC'ing Matt Fleming
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
>>
>> Add a new function to parse DT parameters for Xen specific UEFI just
>> like the way for normal UEFI. Then it could reuse the existing codes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
>
> Please CC the maintainers, use ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl to find out
> who they are.
>
>
>>   drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> index 027ca21..2dbc2ac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>   #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <xen/xen.h>
>>
>>   struct efi __read_mostly efi = {
>>   	.mps			= EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR,
>> @@ -498,12 +499,14 @@ device_initcall(efi_load_efivars);
>>   		FIELD_SIZEOF(struct efi_fdt_params, field) \
>>   	}
>>
>> -static __initdata struct {
>> +struct params {
>>   	const char name[32];
>>   	const char propname[32];
>>   	int offset;
>>   	int size;
>> -} dt_params[] = {
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct params fdt_params[] __initdata = {
>>   	UEFI_PARAM("System Table", "linux,uefi-system-table", system_table),
>>   	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Address", "linux,uefi-mmap-start", mmap),
>>   	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Size", "linux,uefi-mmap-size", mmap_size),
>> @@ -511,6 +514,14 @@ static __initdata struct {
>>   	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Desc. Version", "linux,uefi-mmap-desc-ver", desc_ver)
>>   };
>>
>> +static struct params xen_fdt_params[] __initdata = {
>> +	UEFI_PARAM("System Table", "xen,uefi-system-table", system_table),
>> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Address", "xen,uefi-mmap-start", mmap),
>> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Size", "xen,uefi-mmap-size", mmap_size),
>> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Desc. Size", "xen,uefi-mmap-desc-size", desc_size),
>> +	UEFI_PARAM("MemMap Desc. Version", "xen,uefi-mmap-desc-ver", desc_ver)
>> +};
>> +
>>   struct param_info {
>>   	int found;
>>   	void *params;
>> @@ -520,15 +531,28 @@ static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>>   				       int depth, void *data)
>>   {
>>   	struct param_info *info = data;
>> +	struct params *dt_params;
>> +	unsigned int size;
>>   	const void *prop;
>>   	void *dest;
>>   	u64 val;
>>   	int i, len;
>>
>> -	if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)
>> -		return 0;
>> +	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT)) {
>> +		if (depth != 2 || strcmp(uname, "uefi") != 0)
>
> You are already introducing this check in the previous patch when
> setting EFI_PARAVIRT, why do this again now?  But if we need to do this
> check again, then, like Mark suggested, it should be done against the
> full path.
>
This check just wants to confirm that the current node is the "uefi" 
node and we can parse it with xen_fdt_params now.

> Also you added below to efi_get_fdt_params:
>
> 	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT))
> 		dt_params = xen_fdt_params;
> 	else
> 		dt_params = fdt_params;
>
> efi_get_fdt_params is the sole caller of fdt_find_uefi_params: it makes
> sense to set dt_params only once, then pass it to fdt_find_uefi_params
> as parameter.
>
Sure.
>
>> +			return 0;
>>
>> -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dt_params); i++) {
>> +		dt_params = xen_fdt_params;
>> +		size = ARRAY_SIZE(xen_fdt_params);
>> +	} else {
>> +		if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)
>> +			return 0;
>> +
>> +		dt_params = fdt_params;
>> +		size = ARRAY_SIZE(fdt_params);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
>>   		prop = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, dt_params[i].propname, &len);
>>   		if (!prop)
>>   			return 0;
>> @@ -552,6 +576,7 @@ static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>>   int __init efi_get_fdt_params(struct efi_fdt_params *params)
>>   {
>>   	struct param_info info;
>> +	struct params *dt_params;
>>   	int ret;
>>
>>   	pr_info("Getting EFI parameters from FDT:\n");
>> @@ -559,12 +584,18 @@ int __init efi_get_fdt_params(struct efi_fdt_params *params)
>>   	info.found = 0;
>>   	info.params = params;
>>
>> +	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT))
>> +		dt_params = xen_fdt_params;
>> +	else
>> +		dt_params = fdt_params;
>> +
>>   	ret = of_scan_flat_dt(fdt_find_uefi_params, &info);
>> -	if (!info.found)
>> +	if (!info.found) {
>>   		pr_info("UEFI not found.\n");
>> -	else if (!ret)
>> +	} else if (!ret) {
>>   		pr_err("Can't find '%s' in device tree!\n",
>>   		       dt_params[info.found].name);
>> +	}
>>
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>> --
>> 2.0.4
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>

-- 
Shannon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1312254

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:19:05PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2016/1/18 23:41, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >CC'ing Matt Fleming
> >
> >On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >>From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
> >>@@ -520,15 +531,28 @@ static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
> >>  				       int depth, void *data)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct param_info *info = data;
> >>+	struct params *dt_params;
> >>+	unsigned int size;
> >>  	const void *prop;
> >>  	void *dest;
> >>  	u64 val;
> >>  	int i, len;
> >>
> >>-	if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)
> >>-		return 0;
> >>+	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT)) {
> >>+		if (depth != 2 || strcmp(uname, "uefi") != 0)
> >
> >You are already introducing this check in the previous patch when
> >setting EFI_PARAVIRT, why do this again now?  But if we need to do this
> >check again, then, like Mark suggested, it should be done against the
> >full path.
> >
> This check just wants to confirm that the current node is the "uefi"
> node and we can parse it with xen_fdt_params now.

There is no single "uefi" node as many nodes can share that name. There
is at most a single, /hypervisor/uefi node, as that is qualified by a
full path.

Checking the leaf node name, as above, is insufficient. For example, the
below will be accepted:

* /chosen/uefi
* /foo/uefi
* /not-a-hypervisor/uefi

Any of these could exist in addition to a /hypervisor/uefi node, and
could appear ealier or later in the DTB.

There may be reasons to add such nodes in future, and regardless we
should not read properties from an invalid/wrong node.

Thanks,
Mark.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1312255

On 2016/1/19 21:43, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:19:05PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2016/1/18 23:41, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> CC'ing Matt Fleming
>>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
>>>> @@ -520,15 +531,28 @@ static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>>>>   				       int depth, void *data)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct param_info *info = data;
>>>> +	struct params *dt_params;
>>>> +	unsigned int size;
>>>>   	const void *prop;
>>>>   	void *dest;
>>>>   	u64 val;
>>>>   	int i, len;
>>>>
>>>> -	if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)
>>>> -		return 0;
>>>> +	if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT)) {
>>>> +		if (depth != 2 || strcmp(uname, "uefi") != 0)
>>>
>>> You are already introducing this check in the previous patch when
>>> setting EFI_PARAVIRT, why do this again now?  But if we need to do this
>>> check again, then, like Mark suggested, it should be done against the
>>> full path.
>>>
>> This check just wants to confirm that the current node is the "uefi"
>> node and we can parse it with xen_fdt_params now.
>
> There is no single "uefi" node as many nodes can share that name. There
> is at most a single, /hypervisor/uefi node, as that is qualified by a
> full path.
>
Sure, I will check it by full path.

> Checking the leaf node name, as above, is insufficient. For example, the
> below will be accepted:
>
> * /chosen/uefi
> * /foo/uefi
> * /not-a-hypervisor/uefi
>
> Any of these could exist in addition to a /hypervisor/uefi node, and
> could appear ealier or later in the DTB.
>
> There may be reasons to add such nodes in future, and regardless we
> should not read properties from an invalid/wrong node.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>

-- 
Shannon

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web