On 30.03.2022 14:13, Michal Orzel wrote: > On 30.03.2022 13:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 30.03.2022 13:04, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> On 30.03.2022 12:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 30.03.2022 12:32, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> Renaming to PE_COFF may help to avoid the confusion with CONFIG_EFI. >>>>> That said, it would possibly make more difficult to associate the flag >>>>> with "linking an EFI binary". >>>> >>>> Indeed. And EFI_PE_COFF is getting a little unwieldy for my taste. >>>> >>>>> I think some documentaion about the define EFI would be help so there >>>>> are no more confusion between CONFIG_EFI/EFI. But I am not sure where to >>>>> put it. Maybe at the top of the header? >>>> >>>> That's perhaps the best place, yes. >>>> >>> In this case how about the following comment at the top of xen.lds.h: >>> >>> "To avoid any confusion about EFI macro used in this header vs EFI support, >>> the former is used when linking a native EFI (i.e. PE/COFF) binary, whereas >>> the latter means support for generating EFI binary. >> >> No, that's the case on Arm only. As Julien suggested, it is perhaps best >> to explain the difference between EFI and CONFIG_EFI, without going into >> arch specifics. > Could you please tell me what you are reffering to as there is no such > identifier > in Xen (as opposed to Linux) like CONFIG_EFI ?
Let's call it a "virtual" CONFIG_EFI then; I think we really should have such an option. But yes, if you don't like referring to such a virtual option, then describing what is meant verbally is certainly going to be fine. Jan
