On 20 May 2015 at 21:46, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 17.05.15 at 22:03, <parth.di...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/include/xen/efi.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/efi.h
> > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
> > extern const bool_t efi_enabled;
> >
> > #define EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR (~0UL)
> > -
> > +#define EFI_MEM_DESC_V1 1
> > /* Add fields here only if they need to be referenced from non-EFI
> code. */
> > struct efi {
> > unsigned long mps; /* MPS table */
> > @@ -20,6 +20,15 @@ struct efi {
> >
> > extern struct efi efi;
> >
> > +struct efi_memory_desc {
> > + u32 type;
> > + u32 pad;
> > + u64 phys_addr;
> > + u64 virt_addr;
> > + u64 num_pages;
> > + u64 attribute;
> > +};
> > +
> > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >
> > union xenpf_efi_info;
>
> NAK - you're supposed to use what is already there, or give a good
> reason why redundant declarations are needed.
>
> I thought efi fields that need to be refreneced from non-efi code can be
added here.
Is this not correct?
Although i am rethinking about the design so that efi tables are extracted
in the common efi code and passed
to non efi code as it is done in case of device tree. I'll post rfc for
that would that be okay?
> Jan
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
