From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [patch 5/9 v3] efi: export more efi table variable to sysfs Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:15:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20131123131518.GC24148@pd.tnic> References: <20131121061704.363730447@dhcp-16-126.nay.redhat.com> <20131121061754.887381332@dhcp-16-126.nay.redhat.com> <20131121165742.GN26009@pd.tnic> <20131122024850.GC3874@dhcp-16-126.nay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131122024850.GC3874-je1gSBvt1TcFLmT5oZ11vB/sF2h8X+2i0E9HWUfgJXw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dave Young Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org, hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, James.Bottomley-d9PhHud1JfjCXq6kfMZ53/egYHeGw8Jk@public.gmane.org, vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, horms-/R6kz+dDXgpPR4JQBCEnsQ@public.gmane.org, kexec-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, greg-U8xfFu+wG4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org, toshi.kani-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:48:50AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > efi.config_table = (unsigned long)efi.systab->tables; > > efi.fw_vendor = (unsigned long)efi.systab->fw_vendor; > > efi.runtime = (unsigned long)efi.systab->runtime; > > Hmm, UEFI spec mentions the them like below so I use the order: I'm sure by now you know you should not really trust the UEFI spec, or any other spec for that matter :) > Several fields of the EFI System Table must be converted from > physical pointers to virtual pointers using the ConvertPointer() > service. These fields include FirmwareVendor, RuntimeServices, > and ConfigurationTable. > > But since you like the reverse I can change it in next version. The reverse was simply a suggestion. The vertical alignment was more what I aimed at because it makes this chunk much more readable IMO. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --