On 16.09.2021 03:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> +static void __init handle_dom0less_domain_node(EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle,
>> + int domain_node,
>> + int addr_cells,
>> + int size_cells)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * Check for nodes compatible with
>> multiboot,{kernel,ramdisk,device-tree}
>> + * inside this node
>> + */
>> + for ( int module_node = fdt_first_subnode(fdt, domain_node);
>
> int module_node;
>
> for ( module_node = fdt_first_subnode(fdt, domain_node);
Not just here iirc from briefly looking over the patch as a whole
yesterday: Use of plain "int" would better be limited to cases where
values may also be negative. I don't suppose that's possible here as
well as in a number of other cases.
>> @@ -1285,14 +1286,21 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE
>> *SystemTable)
>> efi_bs->FreePool(name.w);
>> }
>>
>> - if ( !name.s )
>> - blexit(L"No Dom0 kernel image specified.");
>> -
>> efi_arch_cfg_file_early(loaded_image, dir_handle, section.s);
>>
>> - option_str = split_string(name.s);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM
>> + /* dom0less feature is supported only on ARM */
>> + dom0less_found = check_dom0less_efi_boot(dir_handle);
>> +#endif
>
> Rather than an #ifdef here you can simply implement
> check_dom0less_efi_boot on x86 as a static inline returning always
> false.
Indeed, and the properly named (efi_arch_...()).
Jan
