From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753950AbcGDNRh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 09:17:37 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:36603 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753686AbcGDNRe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 09:17:34 -0400
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:17:31 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] efi: Document #define FOO_PROTOCOL_GUID layout
Message-ID: <20160704131731.GL8415@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1466839230-12781-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <1466839230-12781-3-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160627104920.GA9099@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160627104920.GA9099@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 27 Jun, at 12:49:20PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
 
> The other weirdness is the misalignment of the '0xe' portion here:
> 
> #define LINUX_EFI_ARM_SCREEN_INFO_TABLE_GUID	EFI_GUID(0xe03fc20a, 0x85dc, 0x406e,  0xb9, 0xe, 0x4a, 0xb5, 0x02, 0x37, 0x1d, 0x95)
> #define LINUX_EFI_LOADER_ENTRY_GUID		EFI_GUID(0x4a67b082, 0x0a4c, 0x41cf,  0xb6, 0xc7, 0x44, 0x0b, 0x29, 0xbb, 0x8c, 0x4f)
> 
> Am I correct that LINUX_EFI_ARM_SCREEN_INFO_TABLE_GUID is purely Linux kernel 
> internal, and that we can write 0xe as 0x0e?
 
Yep, you're correct.

> The patch below implements this organization of the GUIDs on top of your patch.
> 
> Also note that it should still be easy to line up these lines with the spec, as I 
> left an extra space before the 'byte' portion of the table, so the table is 
> separated into two areas visually.

Looks fine to me, and so did Joe's checkpatch patch.