From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Gardner Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:42:54 -0700 Message-ID: <50E7068E.8080101@gmail.com> References: <1357219085-4312-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <1357219085-4312-2-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <50E6F086.5020209@gmail.com> <1357316128.8203.33.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1357316128.8203.33.camel-ZqTwcBeJ+wsBof6jY8KHXm7IUlhRatedral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: Steve Langasek , Matthew Garrett , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Olof Johansson , Tony Luck , David Airlie , Corentin Chary , Dave Jiang , Peter Jones , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , tim.gardner-Z7WLFzj8eWMS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 01/04/2013 09:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> 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. > When you do change them to bit numbers you should also note that EFI_CONFIG_TABLES and EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES have the same value, which I believe is in error. rtg -- Tim Gardner tim.gardner-Z7WLFzj8eWMS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org