On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote: > On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > snip > > > /* > > - * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible, remove > > - * EFI-related code altogether. > > + * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if > > + * possible, remove EFI-related code altogether. > > */ > > +#define EFI_BOOT 0x00000001 /* Were we booted from EFI? */ > > +#define EFI_SYSTEM_TABLES 0x00000002 /* Can we use EFI system tables? */ > > +#define EFI_CONFIG_TABLES 0x00000004 /* Can we use EFI config tables? */ > > +#define EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES 0x00000004 /* Can we use runtime services? */ > > +#define EFI_MEMMAP 0x00000008 /* Can we use EFI memory map? */ > > +#define EFI_64BIT 0x00000010 /* Is the firmware 64-bit? */ > > + > > Your use of test_bit() and set_bit() imply that these macros should be > bit numbers, not bit masks. It'll work until you define a mask with an > integer value greater then 31. They're not intended to be bitmasks in the sense that no two bits are set in each constant (and I am aware of the upper limit). I have no problem changing the above values to bit numbers if that would be less confusing. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
