On 01/15/2018 20:40, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
>
> On 01/15/18 15:42, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 03:20:49PM -0800, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>> Fair enough. Here's a patch with a new flag (DIRECT_MAP_AVAILABLE).
>>> I've
>>> also retooled the sfbuf code to use this rather than its own flags that
>>> mean the same things. The sparc64 part of the patch is untested.
>>> -Nathan
>>> Index: amd64/include/vmparam.h
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- amd64/include/vmparam.h (revision 328006)
>>> +++ amd64/include/vmparam.h (working copy)
>>> @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@
>>> * because the result is not actually accessed until later, but
>>> the early
>>> * vt fb startup needs to be reworked.
>>> */
>>> +#define DIRECT_MAP_AVAILABLE 1
>>> #define PHYS_TO_DMAP(x) ({ \
>>> KASSERT(dmaplimit == 0 || (x) < dmaplimit, \
>>> ("physical address %#jx not covered by the DMAP", \
>>> Index: arm64/include/vmparam.h
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- arm64/include/vmparam.h (revision 328006)
>>> +++ arm64/include/vmparam.h (working copy)
>>> @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@
>>> #define VIRT_IN_DMAP(va) ((va) >= DMAP_MIN_ADDRESS && \
>>> (va) < (dmap_max_addr))
>>> +#define DIRECT_MAP_AVAILABLE
>> Just define, or define it to 1 ?
>
> Yes, sorry for typo.
>
>>
>>> #define PHYS_TO_DMAP(pa) \
>>> ({ \
>>> KASSERT(PHYS_IN_DMAP(pa), \
>>> Index: dev/efidev/efirt.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- dev/efidev/efirt.c (revision 328006)
>>> +++ dev/efidev/efirt.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -115,6 +115,11 @@
>>> return (0);
>>> }
>>> efi_systbl = (struct efi_systbl *)PHYS_TO_DMAP(efi_systbl_phys);
>>> + if (efi_systbl == NULL) {
>>> + if (bootverbose)
>>> + printf("EFI systbl not mapped in kernel VA\n");
>>> + return (0);
>>> + }
>> Is this chunk still needed ?
>
> The existing code is a bit of an awkward superposition of the "return
> NULL" idea and having the flag. Since you think there will never be
> intermediate cases -- which seems reasonable -- I will rip the
> conditional logic out and add a KASSERT matching the ones on arm64 and
> amd64 to the powerpc version.
>
>>
>>> if (efi_systbl->st_hdr.th_sig != EFI_SYSTBL_SIG) {
>>> efi_systbl = NULL;
>>> if (bootverbose)
>>> Index: kern/subr_sfbuf.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- kern/subr_sfbuf.c (revision 328006)
>>> +++ kern/subr_sfbuf.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -88,8 +88,8 @@
>>> vm_offset_t sf_base;
>>> int i;
>>> -#ifdef SFBUF_OPTIONAL_DIRECT_MAP
>>> - if (SFBUF_OPTIONAL_DIRECT_MAP)
>>> +#ifdef DIRECT_MAP_AVAILABLE
>>> + if (DIRECT_MAP_AVAILABLE)
>>> return;
>> Would it make sense to define the symbol on all other arches as 0 then,
>> and remove #ifdef ? Returning to your initial proposal of relying on the
>> compiler optimiing if (0) block; out.
>
> That is a good idea.
>
>> Also, just curious, why did you spelled DMAP as DIRECT_MAP ?
>>
>
> DMAP without the PHYS_TO_ seemed lacking in context and I was worried
> there might be a collision on DMAP. PMAP_HAS_DMAP would also work; I
> don't have a preference.
>
I would suggest "ARCH_HAS_DMAP".
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
