* Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to
@ 2013-01-05 3:28 ` Guo Chao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Guo Chao @ 2013-01-05 3:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy
Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
query EFI facilities
Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index e33e09d..e71d924 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> pidmap_init();
> anon_vma_init();
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> - if (efi_enabled)
> + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES))
> efi_enter_virtual_mode();
> #endif
> thread_info_cache_init();
> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> acpi_early_init(); /* before LAPIC and SMP init */
> sfi_init_late();
>
> - if (efi_enabled) {
> + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) {
> efi_late_init();
> efi_free_boot_services();
> }
I just wonder why we compile efi code away explicitly by CONFIG_X86 in
one place and implicitly by if (0) in another place, in the same
function.
Thanks,
Guo Chao
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to
@ 2013-01-05 3:28 ` Guo Chao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Guo Chao @ 2013-01-05 3:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: matt; +Cc: linux-efi, linux-kernel
query EFI facilities
Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org>
In-Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org>
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index e33e09d..e71d924 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> pidmap_init();
> anon_vma_init();
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> - if (efi_enabled)
> + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES))
> efi_enter_virtual_mode();
> #endif
> thread_info_cache_init();
> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> acpi_early_init(); /* before LAPIC and SMP init */
> sfi_init_late();
>
> - if (efi_enabled) {
> + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) {
> efi_late_init();
> efi_free_boot_services();
> }
I just wonder why we compile efi code away explicitly by CONFIG_X86 in
one place and implicitly by if (0) in another place, in the same
function.
Thanks,
Guo Chao
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to
2013-01-05 3:28 ` Guo Chao
@ 2013-01-08 11:01 ` Matt Fleming
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Matt Fleming @ 2013-01-08 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guo Chao
Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Matthew Garrett
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 11:28 +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> query EFI facilities
> Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
> In-Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
>
> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > index e33e09d..e71d924 100644
> > --- a/init/main.c
> > +++ b/init/main.c
> > @@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> > pidmap_init();
> > anon_vma_init();
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > - if (efi_enabled)
> > + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES))
> > efi_enter_virtual_mode();
> > #endif
> > thread_info_cache_init();
> > @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> > acpi_early_init(); /* before LAPIC and SMP init */
> > sfi_init_late();
> >
> > - if (efi_enabled) {
> > + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) {
> > efi_late_init();
> > efi_free_boot_services();
> > }
>
> I just wonder why we compile efi code away explicitly by CONFIG_X86 in
> one place and implicitly by if (0) in another place, in the same
> function.
Because ia64 also has an efi_enter_virtual_mode() implementation, but
that's called internally by arch/ia64.
The setup we've got at the moment isn't ideal, as there's a couple of
oddities like this dotted around the kernel. I have plans to try and
unify the EFI code a bit more based on a patch that Matthew Garrett
wrote, which should allow us to do away with things like the above.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to
@ 2013-01-08 11:01 ` Matt Fleming
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Matt Fleming @ 2013-01-08 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guo Chao; +Cc: linux-efi, linux-kernel, Matthew Garrett
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 11:28 +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> query EFI facilities
> Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org>
> In-Reply-To: <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org>
>
> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > index e33e09d..e71d924 100644
> > --- a/init/main.c
> > +++ b/init/main.c
> > @@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> > pidmap_init();
> > anon_vma_init();
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > - if (efi_enabled)
> > + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES))
> > efi_enter_virtual_mode();
> > #endif
> > thread_info_cache_init();
> > @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> > acpi_early_init(); /* before LAPIC and SMP init */
> > sfi_init_late();
> >
> > - if (efi_enabled) {
> > + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) {
> > efi_late_init();
> > efi_free_boot_services();
> > }
>
> I just wonder why we compile efi code away explicitly by CONFIG_X86 in
> one place and implicitly by if (0) in another place, in the same
> function.
Because ia64 also has an efi_enter_virtual_mode() implementation, but
that's called internally by arch/ia64.
The setup we've got at the moment isn't ideal, as there's a couple of
oddities like this dotted around the kernel. I have plans to try and
unify the EFI code a bit more based on a patch that Matthew Garrett
wrote, which should allow us to do away with things like the above.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-08 11:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-05 3:28 [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to Guo Chao
2013-01-05 3:28 ` Guo Chao
2013-01-08 11:01 ` Matt Fleming
2013-01-08 11:01 ` Matt Fleming
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.