| Message ID | 20240229121352.11264-1-michal.orzel@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | SUPPORT.md: clarify support of booting 32-bit Xen on ARMv8 | expand |
Hi Michal, On 29/02/2024 12:13, Michal Orzel wrote: > Since commit bd1001db0af1 ("xen/arm: arm32: Allow Xen to boot on > unidentified CPUs"), it's been possible to boot 32-bit Xen on ARMv8A CPUs > in AArch32 state (assuming HW supports EL2 execution in AArch32). Clarify > the support statement and mark it as Tech Preview, as this use case is > uncommon and hasn't really been tested/hardened. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com> > --- > SUPPORT.md | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md > index a90d1108c9d9..acc61230bb5e 100644 > --- a/SUPPORT.md > +++ b/SUPPORT.md > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ supported in this document. > Status: Supported I would consider to use 'Status, Xen in aarch64 mode: Supported' and then... > Status, Cortex A57 r0p0-r1p1: Supported, not security supported > Status, Cortex A77 r0p0-r1p0: Supported, not security supported > + Status, Xen in AArch32 mode: Tech Preview ... move this line closer. What do you think? In any case, I am happy with the idea to clarify the SUPPORT state. Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> > > For the Cortex A57 r0p0 - r1p1, see Errata 832075. > For the Cortex A77 r0p0 - r1p0, see Errata 1508412. Cheers,
Hi Julien, On 29/02/2024 13:35, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > On 29/02/2024 12:13, Michal Orzel wrote: >> Since commit bd1001db0af1 ("xen/arm: arm32: Allow Xen to boot on >> unidentified CPUs"), it's been possible to boot 32-bit Xen on ARMv8A CPUs >> in AArch32 state (assuming HW supports EL2 execution in AArch32). Clarify >> the support statement and mark it as Tech Preview, as this use case is >> uncommon and hasn't really been tested/hardened. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com> >> --- >> SUPPORT.md | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md >> index a90d1108c9d9..acc61230bb5e 100644 >> --- a/SUPPORT.md >> +++ b/SUPPORT.md >> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ supported in this document. >> Status: Supported > I would consider to use 'Status, Xen in aarch64 mode: Supported' and then... > >> Status, Cortex A57 r0p0-r1p1: Supported, not security supported >> Status, Cortex A77 r0p0-r1p0: Supported, not security supported >> + Status, Xen in AArch32 mode: Tech Preview > > ... move this line closer. What do you think? That works for me too (+AArch64 instead of aarch64). Shall I respin the patch? ~Michal
On 29/02/2024 12:37, Michal Orzel wrote: > Hi Julien, Hi Michal, > > On 29/02/2024 13:35, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 29/02/2024 12:13, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> Since commit bd1001db0af1 ("xen/arm: arm32: Allow Xen to boot on >>> unidentified CPUs"), it's been possible to boot 32-bit Xen on ARMv8A CPUs >>> in AArch32 state (assuming HW supports EL2 execution in AArch32). Clarify >>> the support statement and mark it as Tech Preview, as this use case is >>> uncommon and hasn't really been tested/hardened. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com> >>> --- >>> SUPPORT.md | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md >>> index a90d1108c9d9..acc61230bb5e 100644 >>> --- a/SUPPORT.md >>> +++ b/SUPPORT.md >>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ supported in this document. >>> Status: Supported >> I would consider to use 'Status, Xen in aarch64 mode: Supported' and then... >> >>> Status, Cortex A57 r0p0-r1p1: Supported, not security supported >>> Status, Cortex A77 r0p0-r1p0: Supported, not security supported >>> + Status, Xen in AArch32 mode: Tech Preview >> >> ... move this line closer. What do you think? > That works for me too (+AArch64 instead of aarch64). Ah yes. I keep forgetting capitalizing properly :). > Shall I respin the patch? Up to you. I am happy to fix it. But I will wait a day or two just to give a chance for the others to comment. Cheers,
On 29/02/2024 13:40, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On 29/02/2024 12:37, Michal Orzel wrote: >> Hi Julien, > > Hi Michal, > >> >> On 29/02/2024 13:35, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 29/02/2024 12:13, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>> Since commit bd1001db0af1 ("xen/arm: arm32: Allow Xen to boot on >>>> unidentified CPUs"), it's been possible to boot 32-bit Xen on ARMv8A CPUs >>>> in AArch32 state (assuming HW supports EL2 execution in AArch32). Clarify >>>> the support statement and mark it as Tech Preview, as this use case is >>>> uncommon and hasn't really been tested/hardened. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com> >>>> --- >>>> SUPPORT.md | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md >>>> index a90d1108c9d9..acc61230bb5e 100644 >>>> --- a/SUPPORT.md >>>> +++ b/SUPPORT.md >>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ supported in this document. >>>> Status: Supported >>> I would consider to use 'Status, Xen in aarch64 mode: Supported' and then... >>> >>>> Status, Cortex A57 r0p0-r1p1: Supported, not security supported >>>> Status, Cortex A77 r0p0-r1p0: Supported, not security supported >>>> + Status, Xen in AArch32 mode: Tech Preview >>> >>> ... move this line closer. What do you think? >> That works for me too (+AArch64 instead of aarch64). > > Ah yes. I keep forgetting capitalizing properly :). > >> Shall I respin the patch? > > Up to you. I am happy to fix it. But I will wait a day or two just to > give a chance for the others to comment. That works for me, let's wait for Bertrand and Stefano. ~Michal
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, Michal Orzel wrote: > > On 29/02/2024 13:40, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > > On 29/02/2024 12:37, Michal Orzel wrote: > >> Hi Julien, > > > > Hi Michal, > > > >> > >> On 29/02/2024 13:35, Julien Grall wrote: > >>> On 29/02/2024 12:13, Michal Orzel wrote: > >>>> Since commit bd1001db0af1 ("xen/arm: arm32: Allow Xen to boot on > >>>> unidentified CPUs"), it's been possible to boot 32-bit Xen on ARMv8A CPUs > >>>> in AArch32 state (assuming HW supports EL2 execution in AArch32). Clarify > >>>> the support statement and mark it as Tech Preview, as this use case is > >>>> uncommon and hasn't really been tested/hardened. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> SUPPORT.md | 1 + > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md > >>>> index a90d1108c9d9..acc61230bb5e 100644 > >>>> --- a/SUPPORT.md > >>>> +++ b/SUPPORT.md > >>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ supported in this document. > >>>> Status: Supported > >>> I would consider to use 'Status, Xen in aarch64 mode: Supported' and then... > >>> > >>>> Status, Cortex A57 r0p0-r1p1: Supported, not security supported > >>>> Status, Cortex A77 r0p0-r1p0: Supported, not security supported > >>>> + Status, Xen in AArch32 mode: Tech Preview > >>> > >>> ... move this line closer. What do you think? > >> That works for me too (+AArch64 instead of aarch64). > > > > Ah yes. I keep forgetting capitalizing properly :). > > > >> Shall I respin the patch? > > > > Up to you. I am happy to fix it. But I will wait a day or two just to > > give a chance for the others to comment. > That works for me, let's wait for Bertrand and Stefano. I am fine with it
On 29/02/2024 21:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, Michal Orzel wrote: >> >> On 29/02/2024 13:40, Julien Grall wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 29/02/2024 12:37, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>> Hi Julien, >>> >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>>> >>>> On 29/02/2024 13:35, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> On 29/02/2024 12:13, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>>>> Since commit bd1001db0af1 ("xen/arm: arm32: Allow Xen to boot on >>>>>> unidentified CPUs"), it's been possible to boot 32-bit Xen on ARMv8A CPUs >>>>>> in AArch32 state (assuming HW supports EL2 execution in AArch32). Clarify >>>>>> the support statement and mark it as Tech Preview, as this use case is >>>>>> uncommon and hasn't really been tested/hardened. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> SUPPORT.md | 1 + >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md >>>>>> index a90d1108c9d9..acc61230bb5e 100644 >>>>>> --- a/SUPPORT.md >>>>>> +++ b/SUPPORT.md >>>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ supported in this document. >>>>>> Status: Supported >>>>> I would consider to use 'Status, Xen in aarch64 mode: Supported' and then... >>>>> >>>>>> Status, Cortex A57 r0p0-r1p1: Supported, not security supported >>>>>> Status, Cortex A77 r0p0-r1p0: Supported, not security supported >>>>>> + Status, Xen in AArch32 mode: Tech Preview >>>>> >>>>> ... move this line closer. What do you think? >>>> That works for me too (+AArch64 instead of aarch64). >>> >>> Ah yes. I keep forgetting capitalizing properly :). >>> >>>> Shall I respin the patch? >>> >>> Up to you. I am happy to fix it. But I will wait a day or two just to >>> give a chance for the others to comment. >> That works for me, let's wait for Bertrand and Stefano. > > I am fine with it Committed. Cheers,
diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md index a90d1108c9d9..acc61230bb5e 100644 --- a/SUPPORT.md +++ b/SUPPORT.md @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ supported in this document. Status: Supported Status, Cortex A57 r0p0-r1p1: Supported, not security supported Status, Cortex A77 r0p0-r1p0: Supported, not security supported + Status, Xen in AArch32 mode: Tech Preview For the Cortex A57 r0p0 - r1p1, see Errata 832075. For the Cortex A77 r0p0 - r1p0, see Errata 1508412.
Since commit bd1001db0af1 ("xen/arm: arm32: Allow Xen to boot on unidentified CPUs"), it's been possible to boot 32-bit Xen on ARMv8A CPUs in AArch32 state (assuming HW supports EL2 execution in AArch32). Clarify the support statement and mark it as Tech Preview, as this use case is uncommon and hasn't really been tested/hardened. Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com> --- SUPPORT.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)