On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 10:54 AM Ross Lagerwall
<ross.lagerw...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Looking at the end of this series it looks like 70-80% of the code
would be duplicated.
IMO it would be better to have common code calling specific architecture parts.
> Ross
Frediano
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
