Am 9. Februar 2025 21:15:53 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: >Hi Tom, > >On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 09:39, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:47:47AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> [snip] >> > Perhaps make EFI_LOADER select CPU, or depend on CPU? If that's the >> > way you want to go, I'd be happy to do a precursor series to deal with >> > the fallout. >> >> I'm not sure what EFI_LOADER has to do with the generic security feature >> of enforcing permissions on pages. That's something we want everywhere >> that can enable it as it's a good defensive security measure and also >> catches code bugs. > >Yes, it's a good thing to have. I assumed it was related to EFI >because of all the mention of EFI, SetVirtualAddressMap() and the >like. > >It doesn't have to be DM. I was reacting to the idea that we cannot >add it to the CPU driver because hardly any boards have one. How about >mapping arch-specific stuff to generic functions, like we try to do >with the CPU uclass. The enforcement happens before initr_dm() >although I suppose it could be moved later, or a CPU driver could be >started up before relocation. Or just don't use a CPU driver, use >something else. > >WIth all the pain I've just been through with the EFI link scripts, I >would have rather seen some effort to follow the existing convention, >e.g. text_start rather than start_text. We already have >__image_copy_start - there is so much arch-specific variability here >already.
Like we did for the EFI linker scripts we should standardize the u-boot binary linker scripts by using a common linker script include. Best regards Heinrich > >Anyway, I'll stay away from this series in future. > >Regards, >Simon
