Re: [PATCH 1/3 -v4] x86_64 EFI runtime service support: EFI basic runtime service support

["Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 18:09 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Huang, Ying wrote:
> 
> > This patch adds basic runtime services support for EFI x86_64
> > system. The main file of the patch is the addition of efi.c for
> > x86_64. This file is modeled after the EFI IA32 avatar.
> 
> modeled means copied and modified, right?
> 
> This is wrong. I compared efi_32.c and efi_64.c and a large amount of
> the code is simply the same. The small details can be sorted out by
> two sets of macros/inline functions easily.
> 
> Please fix this up.

Yes. There are many duplicated code between efi_32.c and efi_64.c, and
they should be merged. But there are some code that is different between
efi_32.c and efi_64.c. For example, there is different implementations
of efi_call_phys_prelog in both files, and there is an implementation of
efi_memmap_walk only in efi_32.c not in efi_64.c.

3 possible schemes are as follow:

- One efi.c, with EFI 32/64 specific code inside corresponding
#ifdef/#endif.

- 3 files: efi.c, efi_32.c, efi_64.c, common code goes in efi.c, EFI
32/64 specific code goes in efi_32/64.c. This will make some variable,
function external instead of static.

- 3 files: efi.c, efi_32.c, efi_64.c, common code goes in efi.c, EFI
32/64 specific code goes in efi_32/64.c. efi.c include efi_32/64.c
according to architecture.

Which one is preferred? Or I should take another scheme?

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/