From: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
This patch updates the documentation for allowing detection of an XSM module that lacks a specific compatible string. This mechanism has been added by the commit ca32012341f3de7d3975407fb963e6028f0d0c8b.
Signed-off-by: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org --- v2: Improve the doc, according to the suggestion from Julien Grall.
v1: http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg02070.html The first upstream version submitted in xen-devel mailing list.
docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt index ad98bf3..254ba77 100644 --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt @@ -24,10 +24,24 @@ 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 check all the modules for the XSM Magic from the second + module that lacks a specific compatible string. According to the + result of the detection: + - if it's a XSM, Xen will assume its compatible string is a + "xen,xsm-policy"; + - if it's not a XSM, for the second module that lacks a specific + compatible string, Xen will assume its compatible string is a + "multiboot,ramdisk"; for the third and subsequent modules those + lacks a specific compatible string will not receive 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
On 21.04.16 at 13:07, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
Please follow the patch submission rules: Mail them _to_ the list, _cc_-ing relevant people. Cc-ing the list twice makes little sense. And please also apply some common sense when deciding who to Cc - I don't think there's much point in Cc-ing other than ARM maintainers on ARM specific doc patches (arguably that should be reflected in ./MAINTAINERS).
Jan
Hi Jan,
On 21 April 2016 at 19:40, Jan Beulich JBeulich@suse.com wrote:
On 21.04.16 at 13:07, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
Please follow the patch submission rules: Mail them _to_ the list, _cc_-ing relevant people. Cc-ing the list twice makes little sense. And please also apply some common sense when deciding who to Cc - I don't think there's much point in Cc-ing other than ARM maintainers on ARM specific doc patches (arguably that should be reflected in ./MAINTAINERS).
Sorry for late response, Thanks for your help, will fix my script :-)
Jan
(CC Wei for the release-ack)
Hi Fu Wei,
On 21/04/16 12:07, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
This patch updates the documentation for allowing detection of an XSM module that lacks a specific compatible string. This mechanism has been added by the commit ca32012341f3de7d3975407fb963e6028f0d0c8b.
Signed-off-by: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
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)?
Wei, this patch only update the doc. I am not sure whether we need your release-ack.
Regards,
v2: Improve the doc, according to the suggestion from Julien Grall.
v1: http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg02070.html The first upstream version submitted in xen-devel mailing list.
docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt index ad98bf3..254ba77 100644 --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt @@ -24,10 +24,24 @@ 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 check all the modules for the XSM Magic from the second
module that lacks a specific compatible string. According to the
result of the detection:
- if it's a XSM, Xen will assume its compatible string is a
"xen,xsm-policy";
- if it's not a XSM, for the second module that lacks a specific
compatible string, Xen will assume its compatible string is a
"multiboot,ramdisk"; for the third and subsequent modules those
lacks a specific compatible string will not receive 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
Sorry, I forgot to mention the typo in the title:
s/documention/documentation/
On 22/04/16 17:40, Julien Grall wrote:
(CC Wei for the release-ack)
Hi Fu Wei,
On 21/04/16 12:07, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
This patch updates the documentation for allowing detection of an XSM module that lacks a specific compatible string. This mechanism has been added by the commit ca32012341f3de7d3975407fb963e6028f0d0c8b.
Signed-off-by: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
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)?
Wei, this patch only update the doc. I am not sure whether we need your release-ack.
Regards,
v2: Improve the doc, according to the suggestion from Julien Grall.
v1: http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg02070.html The first upstream version submitted in xen-devel mailing list.
docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt index ad98bf3..254ba77 100644 --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt @@ -24,10 +24,24 @@ 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 check all the modules for the XSM Magic from the second
module that lacks a specific compatible string. According to the
result of the detection:
- if it's a XSM, Xen will assume its compatible string is a
"xen,xsm-policy";
- if it's not a XSM, for the second module that lacks a specific
compatible string, Xen will assume its compatible string is a
"multiboot,ramdisk"; for the third and subsequent modules those
lacks a specific compatible string will not receive 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
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 05:40:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
(CC Wei for the release-ack)
Hi Fu Wei,
On 21/04/16 12:07, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
This patch updates the documentation for allowing detection of an XSM module that lacks a specific compatible string. This mechanism has been added by the commit ca32012341f3de7d3975407fb963e6028f0d0c8b.
Signed-off-by: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
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)?
Wei, this patch only update the doc. I am not sure whether we need your release-ack.
FAOD:
Release-acked-by: Wei Liu wei.liu2@citrix.com
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Wei Liu wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 05:40:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
(CC Wei for the release-ack)
Hi Fu Wei,
On 21/04/16 12:07, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
From: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
This patch updates the documentation for allowing detection of an XSM module that lacks a specific compatible string. This mechanism has been added by the commit ca32012341f3de7d3975407fb963e6028f0d0c8b.
Signed-off-by: Fu Wei fu.wei@linaro.org
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)?
Wei, this patch only update the doc. I am not sure whether we need your release-ack.
FAOD:
Release-acked-by: Wei Liu wei.liu2@citrix.com
Improved the wording and committed
Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH v2] docs/arm64: update the documention for loading XSM support"):
Improved the wording and committed
I see my mail proposing a new version crossed with yours.
Also, I seem to be racing in committing with you.
Can you come onto IRC so we can coordinate ?
Ian.
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: + + - 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
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.