From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:15:37 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 6/9] efi_loader: Add runtime services
In-Reply-To: <20160115135214.GV25034@bivouac.eciton.net>
References: <1450792676-109541-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de>
 <1450792676-109541-7-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de>
 <20151226183304.GZ25034@bivouac.eciton.net> <56983CC2.3000306@suse.de>
 <20160115135214.GV25034@bivouac.eciton.net>
Message-ID: <5698FF09.8040401@suse.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de



On 15.01.16 14:52, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:26:42AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 26.12.15 19:33, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>>>> +	.reset_system = (void *)&efi_unimplemented,
>>>
>>> "The ResetSystem() function does not return."
>>
>> Hrm, I think returning EFI_UNSUPPORTED is still better than while(1) {
>> }. With the return an OS at least has the chance to fix things up itself.
> 
> I'm not saying it isn't better, I'm saying it's not compliant - there
> is no valid return value. I would prefer simply having the pointer set
> to NULL.

Is a NULL function pointer valid here?


Alex