On 15/07/2020 11.40, Janosch Frank wrote: > jump_to_IPL_code takes a 64 bit address, masks it with the short psw > address mask and later branches to it using a full 64 bit register. > > * As the masking is not necessary, let's remove it > * Without the mask we can save the ipl address to a static 64 bit > function ptr as we later branch to it > * Let's also clean up the variable names and remove the now unneeded > ResetInfo > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <[email protected]> > --- > pc-bios/s390-ccw/jump2ipl.c | 27 +++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/jump2ipl.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/jump2ipl.c > index 767012bf0c..aef37cea76 100644 > --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/jump2ipl.c > +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/jump2ipl.c > @@ -13,20 +13,15 @@ > #define KERN_IMAGE_START 0x010000UL > #define RESET_PSW_MASK (PSW_MASK_SHORTPSW | PSW_MASK_64) > > -typedef struct ResetInfo { > - uint64_t ipl_psw; > - uint32_t ipl_continue; > -} ResetInfo; > - > -static ResetInfo save; > +static void (*ipl_continue)(void); > +static uint64_t psw_save;
Christian, do you remember whether there was a reason that we saved the "ipl_continue" in the low-core in the past? The changes here look ok to me, but I still wonder why it has been more "complicated" before...? Acked-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>
