On 09/25/2018 01:15 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> From: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:19:17 +0200 >> >> All our handles point to a struct efi_object. So let's define the >> efi_handle_t accordingly. This helps us to discover coding errors much >> more easily. This becomes evident by the corrections to the usage of >> handles in this patch. >> >> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> >> --- >> v2 >> no change >> --- >> cmd/bootefi.c | 4 ++-- >> include/efi.h | 2 +- >> include/efi_api.h | 8 ++++---- >> lib/efi/efi.c | 2 +- >> lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c | 18 +++++++++--------- >> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_devicepath.c | 2 +- >> 6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/cmd/bootefi.c b/cmd/bootefi.c >> index 9c51a2cbd1..05eb168e4a 100644 >> --- a/cmd/bootefi.c >> +++ b/cmd/bootefi.c >> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static efi_status_t do_bootefi_exec(void *efi, >> } >> #endif >> >> - ret = efi_do_enter(image_handle, &systab, entry); >> + ret = efi_do_enter(&image_handle->parent, &systab, entry); > This bit makes absolutely no sense to me :(. What about the other > efi_do_enter() calls? And why is the variable called image_handle if > it isn't a handle? > >>
Thanks for pointing to this misnomer. We should rename image_handle to image_obj in this function. And we should be consistent about how we pass the address. Regards Heinrich _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
