On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 18:09 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Huang, Ying wrote: > > > This patch adds basic runtime services support for EFI x86_64 > > system. The main file of the patch is the addition of efi.c for > > x86_64. This file is modeled after the EFI IA32 avatar. > > modeled means copied and modified, right? > > This is wrong. I compared efi_32.c and efi_64.c and a large amount of > the code is simply the same. The small details can be sorted out by > two sets of macros/inline functions easily. > > Please fix this up.
Yes. There are many duplicated code between efi_32.c and efi_64.c, and they should be merged. But there are some code that is different between efi_32.c and efi_64.c. For example, there is different implementations of efi_call_phys_prelog in both files, and there is an implementation of efi_memmap_walk only in efi_32.c not in efi_64.c. 3 possible schemes are as follow: - One efi.c, with EFI 32/64 specific code inside corresponding #ifdef/#endif. - 3 files: efi.c, efi_32.c, efi_64.c, common code goes in efi.c, EFI 32/64 specific code goes in efi_32/64.c. This will make some variable, function external instead of static. - 3 files: efi.c, efi_32.c, efi_64.c, common code goes in efi.c, EFI 32/64 specific code goes in efi_32/64.c. efi.c include efi_32/64.c according to architecture. Which one is preferred? Or I should take another scheme? Best Regards, Huang Ying - 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/
