| Message ID | 22298.24446.56007.535207@mariner.uk.xensource.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:29:34PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH v2] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support"): > > The new version looks good to me: > > Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> > > > > Can a native speaker (Ian, Konrad, George) double-check the wording)? > > I found it rather difficult to read. See updated version, attached. > > I dropped your ack because I want to be sure that the new version > still describes the actual behaviour. I kept Wei's release-ack. > > Thanks, > Ian. > > >From bd8f24667d353a4c90203d51c1fdb42a66b79973 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:07:09 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support > > This patch updates the documentation for allowing detection of an XSM > module that lacks a specific compatible string. > > (This mechanism was added in commit ca32012341f3, > "xen/arm64: check XSM Magic from the second unknown module.") > > Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > Release-acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > --- > docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt > index ad98bf3..f3179d6 100644 > --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt > +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt > @@ -24,10 +24,29 @@ Each node contains the following properties: > string (which must always be present). > > Xen will assume that the first module which lacks a more > - specific compatible string is a "multiboot,kernel" and that > - the second such is a "multiboot,ramdisk". Any subsequent > - modules which lack a specific compatiblity string will not > - receive any special treatment. > + specific compatible string is a "multiboot,kernel". > + > + Xen will examine each module, starting from the second > + module that lacks a specific compatible string. Xen will > + check each such module for the XSM Magic number: Not sure why you have the extra spaces before 'check'? > + > + - For a module which has the XSM Magic number: it will be > + treated by Xen as if its compatible string was > + "xen,xsm-policy"; > + > + - For a module which does not have the XSM Magic: the second > + module lacking a compatible string will be treated by Xen as > + if its compatible string was "multiboot,ramdisk"; for the > + third and subsequent modules which lack a specific > + compatible string, Xen will not apply any special treatment. > + > + This means if the ramdisk module is present and does not have the > + compatible string "multiboot,ramdisk", then it must always be the > + second module. > + > + Note: This XSM Magic detection behavior was introduced by Xen 4.7. in Xen 4.7? Either way - those are really nitpicks and free free to ignore them. Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> > + Xen 4.6 (and downwards) still requires the XSM module to have the > + compatible string "xen,xsm-policy". > > Xen 4.4 supported a different set of legacy compatible strings > which remain supported such that systems supporting both 4.4 Y > -- > 1.7.10.4 >
Hi Ian, On 22/04/16 18:29, Ian Jackson wrote: > Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH v2] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support"): >> The new version looks good to me: >> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> >> >> Can a native speaker (Ian, Konrad, George) double-check the wording)? > > I found it rather difficult to read. See updated version, attached. Stefano has committed the previous version with some modifications. Is it better to read? Regards,
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH v3] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support"):
> Stefano has committed the previous version with some modifications. Is
> it better to read?
IMO it is better than the original but I still think my proposed
wording is an improvement over Stefano's.
Should I "rebase" it and resubmit ?
Ian.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Ian Jackson wrote: > Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH v3] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support"): > > Stefano has committed the previous version with some modifications. Is > > it better to read? > > IMO it is better than the original but I still think my proposed > wording is an improvement over Stefano's. > > Should I "rebase" it and resubmit ? Sure, thanks.
Hi All, Great thanks for all your help :-) On 25 April 2016 at 23:25, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH v3] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support"): >> > Stefano has committed the previous version with some modifications. Is >> > it better to read? >> >> IMO it is better than the original but I still think my proposed >> wording is an improvement over Stefano's. >> >> Should I "rebase" it and resubmit ? > > Sure, thanks.
diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt index ad98bf3..f3179d6 100644 --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt @@ -24,10 +24,29 @@ Each node contains the following properties: string (which must always be present). Xen will assume that the first module which lacks a more - specific compatible string is a "multiboot,kernel" and that - the second such is a "multiboot,ramdisk". Any subsequent - modules which lack a specific compatiblity string will not - receive any special treatment. + specific compatible string is a "multiboot,kernel". + + Xen will examine each module, starting from the second + module that lacks a specific compatible string. Xen will + check each such module for the XSM Magic number: + + - For a module which has the XSM Magic number: it will be + treated by Xen as if its compatible string was + "xen,xsm-policy"; + + - For a module which does not have the XSM Magic: the second + module lacking a compatible string will be treated by Xen as + if its compatible string was "multiboot,ramdisk"; for the + third and subsequent modules which lack a specific + compatible string, Xen will not apply any special treatment. + + This means if the ramdisk module is present and does not have the + compatible string "multiboot,ramdisk", then it must always be the + second module. + + Note: This XSM Magic detection behavior was introduced by Xen 4.7. + Xen 4.6 (and downwards) still requires the XSM module to have the + compatible string "xen,xsm-policy". Xen 4.4 supported a different set of legacy compatible strings which remain supported such that systems supporting both 4.4
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH v2] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support"): > The new version looks good to me: > Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> > > Can a native speaker (Ian, Konrad, George) double-check the wording)? I found it rather difficult to read. See updated version, attached. I dropped your ack because I want to be sure that the new version still describes the actual behaviour. I kept Wei's release-ack. Thanks, Ian. From bd8f24667d353a4c90203d51c1fdb42a66b79973 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:07:09 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support This patch updates the documentation for allowing detection of an XSM module that lacks a specific compatible string. (This mechanism was added in commit ca32012341f3, "xen/arm64: check XSM Magic from the second unknown module.") Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Release-acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> --- docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)