On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 10:35 AM Frediano Ziglio via Grub-devel
<grub-devel@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:43 AM Frediano Ziglio
> <frediano.zig...@cloud.com> wrote:
> >
> > Compile for x86_64 EFI architecture.
> > Do not fill device tree, not present for this architecture.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <frediano.zig...@cloud.com>
> > ---
> > grub-core/Makefile.core.def | 2 ++
> > grub-core/loader/arm64/xen_boot.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/grub-core/Makefile.core.def b/grub-core/Makefile.core.def
> > index 24e8c8437..bb091e549 100644
> > --- a/grub-core/Makefile.core.def
> > +++ b/grub-core/Makefile.core.def
> > @@ -1848,7 +1848,9 @@ module = {
> > module = {
> > name = xen_boot;
> > arm64 = loader/arm64/xen_boot.c;
> > + x86_64_efi = loader/arm64/xen_boot.c;
>
> Note that in case this series is accepted the file would be better
> moved out of "arm64" directory.
>
It feels like there is not that much code shared between the ARM64 and
x86_64 implementations other than the high level command names
(xen_hypervisor / xen_module). I wonder if it would be cleaner to
instead have a separate implementation for x86_64 while still using the
same command names?
Ross
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
