[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140326085953.GA2958@console-pimps.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:59:53 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Roy Franz <roy.franz@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
matt.fleming@...el.com, leif.lindholm@...aro.org, hpa@...or.com,
bp@...en8.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, mjg59@...f.ucam.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add efi_early_call() macro
On Tue, 25 Mar, at 03:40:30PM, Roy Franz wrote:
> Add the efi_early_call() macro to invoke functions in the efi_early
> structure. Using a macro for these invocations allows the arm32/arm64
> architectures to define the macro differently so that they can directly
> invoke the boot services functions that are exposed in the efi_early
> structure on x86. Prior to the introduction of the efi_early structure
> the efi_call_physN macros were used on all architectures and allowed
> for this differentiation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roy Franz <roy.franz@...aro.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 5 +++++
> drivers/firmware/efi/efi-stub-helper.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Confused.
Why have you rewritten the patch that I sent Satuday morning?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/22/61
I don't think your version goes far enough because you've left all the
efi_early->call() stuff in eboot.c. So now there's two ways to invoke
EFI functions in the x86 boot stub.
What's wrong with the patch that I sent?
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists