On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 08/17/2017 01:49 PM, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>> Macro EFI_CALL was introduced to call an UEFI function. >>> Unfortunately is did not support return values. >>> Most UEFI functions have a return value. >>> >>> So let's rename EFI_CALL to EFI_CALL_VOID and introduce a >>> new EFI_CALL macro that supports return values. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> >>> --- >>> include/efi_loader.h | 16 ++++++++++++++-- >>> lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c | 3 ++- >>> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/efi_loader.h b/include/efi_loader.h >>> index 037cc7c543..1cee10ea0c 100644 >>> --- a/include/efi_loader.h >>> +++ b/include/efi_loader.h >>> @@ -41,9 +41,21 @@ const char *__efi_nesting_dec(void); >>> }) >>> >>> /* >>> - * Callback into UEFI world from u-boot: >>> + * Call non-void UEFI function from u-boot and retrieve return value: >>> */ >>> -#define EFI_CALL(exp) do { \ >>> +#define EFI_CALL(exp) ({ \ >>> + debug("%sEFI: Call: %s\n", __efi_nesting_inc(), #exp); \ >>> + assert(__efi_exit_check()); \ >>> + typeof(exp) r = exp; \ >>> + assert(__efi_entry_check()); \ >>> + debug("%sEFI: Return From: %s\n", __efi_nesting_dec(), #exp); \ >>> + r; \ >>> +}) >>> + >> >> So, I had considered something similar, for the purposes of being able >> to print return value, but in the end decided that the EFI_EXIT() >> print was usually sufficient (except in cases where you enable DEBUG >> in some files but not others), and opted for the simpler MACRO(ret = >> somecall()) approach.. also the longer macro name makes not going over >> 80 chars harder in some cases ;-) >> >> I don't really feel strongly one way or another.. but I guess if we do >> this we might as well add the return value (cast to u64 and print as >> hex to cover both ptrs and efi_status_t?) to the "Return From" debug >> print. > > We already print the return value in EFI_EXIT. > Why should we print it twice? > > In c160d2f5ec9 >
the main reason would be enabling debug in a subset of the files (such as the one calling the API but not the one implementing the API), which is something I do pretty regularly. And I guess in the future we could have payloads installing protocols? BR, -R _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot