From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c09::242; helo=mail-wm0-x242.google.com; envelope-from=leif.lindholm@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB0B203525EE for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id b9so8976143wmh.0 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VXTRQ/2U3OX8gewGtBA/wxImCD80gSz9sefheMlqul8=; b=AfR9CFEWm2753RVhgWg6LRFRbDn6u38dAXceHZpqZGQoD2T1zmhw7bd1yYAl+x/vpp LmbU50D6bFB7BudN5x5TpcLxrvFeV6kDOh+F5MDD3wWsbPU9vezsqCiqCZ5RSVNQsEc4 RZ4MpFAMjJUcK+DCh0p5OVRwRxL9SX+ViVtj4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VXTRQ/2U3OX8gewGtBA/wxImCD80gSz9sefheMlqul8=; b=XiX/3vj36Kl6ay9zvM9FCidEvK2d2XSVRQ50ot32OfL786RC6joNV6cWz7RS+7OQSf pR+muN3PSQmIxifWdcAXF7vocgjiB2eykaSuelCll1Llo4RV87yGqyWtHf4cmPc6Sx2+ ioHnDclAwiBhwLee+AKaK036o9VGmQh/QER6ZkeEEWOVRvErd7YH9gekyIu6zD65bNXX /vFxYS7RcaDfi+zIeUAqX9jfIHJJ2AoV1w5o9sSc4WtDGsv3vx9BWRfOQqTn73lBDOV5 B6NX07izOuOM9ORiwy14YMpyihd5jJyhWj7qxxHo0QuGd2azPB+MQUUCaCJtfNwJv/YX wFAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUbaGWMHKJoQr89Kpul0St8MAuN+db2OuJc2Vm2nm6S+ivVt9wJ zv58Xilso5tJjczMraFVwpTzDA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SbPTYFnrSOl50Par42KR2oQP9WV7tO57p3XaVJCP/5xmyhsW0tW83oU0yb76s6IiQXonPCgw== X-Received: by 10.28.61.213 with SMTP id k204mr1723919wma.110.1509030306095; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p4sm4318614wrf.36.2017.10.26.08.05.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:05:03 +0100 From: Leif Lindholm To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Daniel Thompson , Masami Hiramatsu Message-ID: <20171026150503.xvludmwd7fm5dbyh@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20171025175947.22798-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20171025175947.22798-4-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20171026145643.q5e5rdvnza6twhpg@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [PATCH edk2-platforms v2 03/23] Silicon/SynQuacer: add MemoryInitPeiLib implementation X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:01:21 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 03:57:38PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 26 October 2017 at 15:56, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 06:59:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> Replace the common MemoryInitPeiLib implementation with one that does > >> not remove the primary FV from the memory map. This is a waste of > >> memory and TLB entries, given that the OS can no longer use a 1 GB > >> block mapping to map this memory. > >> > >> Since we have our own implementation now, there is no point in using > >> ArmPlatformLib's GetVirtualMemoryMap() implementation, and we can > >> simply declare and map the regions directly. > >> > >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > This one still has commented-out bits of code. > > I don't really want to have that in master. > > Are we holding off on pushing until we get the dynamic detection > > support ove SCMI, and are we expecting to drop the commented-out bits > > when we do? > > Yes. Right, so this is my only comment on this patch, but I guess there will be non-trivial changes once that happens, so there's probably no point for me to give a r-b at this point. / Leif