On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 17:58 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> >
> > Can you do something to avoid each function having two very similar
> > versions of these functions?
> >
>
> They are similar but I want follow the style in eboot.c.
> On the other hand, it's earlier to locate problem on 32-bit or 64-bit EFI.
>
> So, I will keep the above codes.
FWIW, I think that's fine. I would happily accept a patch to cleanup the
duplication, but I don't think that needs to be a prerequisite for this
support.
I've no problem with the duplication right now.
> >
> > > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > > @@ -427,6 +427,16 @@ typedef struct {
> > > #define EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_VGA_PALETTE_IO_16 0x20000
> > > #define EFI_PCI_IO_ATTRIBUTE_VGA_IO_16 0x40000
> > >
> > > +typedef struct {
> > > + u32 get_info;
> > > + u32 get_rng;
> > > +} efi_rng_protocol_32;
> > > +
> > > +typedef struct {
> > > + u64 get_info;
> > > + u64 get_rng;
> > > +} efi_rng_protocol_64;
> >
> > We don't typedef structs usually...
> >
> > Make it union so you can have just one
> >
>
> I want to follow the style as efi_pci_io_protocolxxx in efi.h.
> So I will keep it.
Yeah, consistency is better here than sticking with the general Linux
coding style rules.
> > > + switch (status) {
> > > + case EFI_SUCCESS:
> > > + str = "EFI_SUCCESS";
> > > + break;
> >
> > Can you use macros to reduce code duplication here?
> > Pavel
> I will try to reduce duplicate code.
Take a look at __stringify().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
