[PATCH 00/10] arm64 EFI patches for 3.19
Ard Biesheuvel
ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org
Mon Oct 27 05:03:49 PDT 2014
On 27 October 2014 12:50, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 03:21:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> This is a bit of a mixed bag of patches that we would like to see merged for
>> 3.19. Most of them have been posted and discussed on linux-efi and/or LAKML
>> before, and one of them has even been merged and reverted twice.
>>
>> Patches #1 - #4 are fixes for compliance with the UEFI and PE/COFF specs.
>> No issues are known that require these patches, so there is no reason to
>> pull them into a stable release.
>>
>> Patches #5 and #6 address minor issues in the arm64 EFI init code.
>>
>> Patches #7 - #10 implement DMI/SMBIOS for arm64, both the existing 32-bit
>> version and the upcoming 3.0 version that allows the SMBIOS structure table
>> to reside at a physical offset that cannot be encoded in 32-bits. It also
>> install a 'Hardware: xxx' string that is printed along with oopses and
>> kernel call stack dumps on systems that implement DMI/SMBIOS.
>>
>> Please refer to the patches themselves for version history. Acks and/or
>> comments appreciated.
>
> It would be helpful for me if you could split this into two series -- one
> for the arm64 tree and the other for the efi tree. That would also make the
> dependencies clearer, so I know whether any of the arch bits need to go via
> Matt.
>
Yeah, I was struggling a bit with that. I think the agreement was that
everything EFI related goes through Matt's tree, but I don't think
that necessarily makes sense for patches that only touch arch/arm64,
unless there are interdependencies with the generic code.
>From this series, only patches #7 and #8 need to go through Matt's
tree, and even if #9 and #10 are also related to SMBIOS, they are in
fact orthogonal to #7 and #8, so those can still go through the arm64
tree without any merge order issues later on.
@Matt: any thoughts?
In addition, #4 and #6 are still being discussed, and I haven't
received any acks on #5 and #10.
--
Ard.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list