On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> 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 Hi Matt, Sorry for the confusion - your patch is fine. I had somehow not noticed it on your reply. Roy -- 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
