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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
