[PATCH v3 38/62] arm/acpi: Add placeholder for efi and acpi load address

Julien Grall julien.grall at citrix.com
Tue Nov 17 06:23:01 PST 2015


Hi Shannon,

On 17/11/15 12:45, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2015/11/17 19:58, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Shannon,
>>
>> On 17/11/15 09:40, shannon.zhao at linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao at linaro.org>
>>>
>>> EFI table, memory description table and some of acpi tables will be
>>> placed after DOM0 memory space. Add placeholder for the starting address
>>> for loading in DOM0 and the size of new added tables. Also add a
>>> placeholder to store the new created tables.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Parth Dixit <parth.dixit at linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h | 5 +++++
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
>>> index 1e61f30..91272e5 100644
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
>>> @@ -125,6 +125,11 @@ struct arch_domain
>>>      } vuart;
>>>  
>>>      unsigned int evtchn_irq;
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>> +    void *efi_acpi_table;
>>> +    paddr_t efi_acpi_gpa;
>>> +    paddr_t efi_acpi_len;
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Why do you need this in the arch_domain? AFAICT those 3 variables should
>> only be used while building DOM0, so a better place would be in struct
>> kernel_info (see xen/arch/arm/kernel.h).
>>
> 
> Since I use efi_acpi_table to store the allocated pages pointer which
> are used to store newly created ACPI and EFI tables.
> See [PATCH v3 40/62]:
> +    order = get_order_from_bytes(d->arch.efi_acpi_len);
> +    d->arch.efi_acpi_table = alloc_xenheap_pages(order, 0);
> 
> And it free these pages when destroying this domain:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +    free_xenheap_pages(d->arch.efi_acpi_table,
> +                       get_order_from_bytes(d->arch.efi_acpi_len));
> +#endif

But this is wrong. You are assuming that DOM0 memory is direct mapped
which may not be true in the future.

You should have at least mentioned that in the commit message.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list