On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:01:18PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 17:58 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you do something to avoid each function having two very similar
> > > versions of these functions?
> > >
> >
> > They are similar but I want follow the style in eboot.c.
> > On the other hand, it's earlier to locate problem on 32-bit or 64-bit EFI.
> >
> > So, I will keep the above codes.
>
> FWIW, I think that's fine. I would happily accept a patch to cleanup the
> duplication, but I don't think that needs to be a prerequisite for this
> support.
>
> I've no problem with the duplication right now.
>
Thanks
> > >
> > > > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > > > @@ -427,6 +427,16 @@ typedef struct {
> > > > #define EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_VGA_PALETTE_IO_16 0x20000
> > > > #define EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_VGA_IO_16 0x40000
> > > >
> > > > +typedef struct {
> > > > + u32 get_info;
> > > > + u32 get_rng;
> > > > +} efi_rng_protocol_32;
> > > > +
> > > > +typedef struct {
> > > > + u64 get_info;
> > > > + u64 get_rng;
> > > > +} efi_rng_protocol_64;
> > >
> > > We don't typedef structs usually...
> > >
> > > Make it union so you can have just one
> > >
> >
> > I want to follow the style as efi_pci_io_protocolxxx in efi.h.
> > So I will keep it.
>
> Yeah, consistency is better here than sticking with the general Linux
> coding style rules.
>
> > > > + switch (status) {
> > > > + case EFI_SUCCESS:
> > > > + str = "EFI_SUCCESS";
> > > > + break;
> > >
> > > Can you use macros to reduce code duplication here?
> > > Pavel
> > I will try to reduce duplicate code.
>
> Take a look at __stringify().
>
Thanks for suggestion, I will look at it.
Joey Lee
--
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
