From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 05/12] replace split_value() with
 truncate_string()
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 07:24:03 +0100
Message-ID: <53E337A30200007800029FF2@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1405989815-25236-1-git-send-email-roy.franz@linaro.org>
	<1405989815-25236-6-git-send-email-roy.franz@linaro.org>
	<53D0CFAD02000078000255F2@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<CAFECyb-0xBht9mdgZe2ohmMF3UheT1hnV3bkaACA+VtON7MVZg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFECyb-0xBht9mdgZe2ohmMF3UheT1hnV3bkaACA+VtON7MVZg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Roy Franz <roy.franz@linaro.org>
Cc: keir <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, tim <tim@xen.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, linaro-uefi <linaro-uefi@lists.linaro.org>, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 07.08.14 at 00:37, <roy.franz@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> Furthermore splitting out the place_string() doesn't seem very
>> efficient, as imo the goal ought to be for efi_start() to become
>> common code (or at least the module loading part of fit), i.e.
>> there's no win at all from the change you're doing here.
> 
> I don't think that combining the x86 and arm efi_start() will work out
> that cleanly.  Arm is using device tree from getting information from
> GRUB and/or the firmware, so I think you'd end up with a lot of conditional
> code.

But that is precisely what you'd add (arch-specific) calls out of the
function for, in the extreme case doing nothing on x86. (And that is
also specifically why I'd favor the approach outlined in the earlier
reply to patch 1.)

Jan