On 30.03.2022 12:32, Julien Grall wrote: > On 29/03/2022 12:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 29.03.2022 12:54, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 29/03/2022 11:12, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>> On 29.03.2022 11:54, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> On 22/03/2022 08:02, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/xen.lds.h >>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/xen.lds.h >>>>>> @@ -5,4 +5,104 @@ >>>>>> * Common macros to be used in architecture specific linker scripts. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> +/* Macros to declare debug sections. */ >>>>>> +#ifdef EFI >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK, we don't define EFI on Arm (just CONFIG_EFI). Yet we do support >>>>> EFI on arm64. >>>>> >>>>> As this #ifdef is now in generic code, can you explain how this is meant >>>>> to be used? >>>>> >>>> As we do not define EFI on arm, all the stuff protected by #ifdef EFI is >>>> x86 specific. >>> >>> I find the name "EFI" too generic to figure out that this code can only >>> be used by x86. >>> >>> But, from my understanding, this header is meant to contain generic >>> code. It feels a bit odd that we are moving arch specific code. >>> >>> To be honest, I don't quite understand why we need to make the >>> diffferentiation on x86. So I guess the first question is how this is >>> meant to be used on x86? >> >> We produce two linker scripts from the single source file: One (with EFI >> undefined) to link the ELF binary, and another (with EFI defined) to link >> the PE/COFF output. If "EFI" is too imprecise as a name for the identifier, >> I wouldn't mind renaming it (to PE_COFF?), but at the same time I'm not >> convinced this is really necessary. > > Thank for the explanation (and the other ones in this thread). You are > right the confusion arised from "generating" vs "linking". > > Renaming to PE_COFF may help to avoid the confusion with CONFIG_EFI. > That said, it would possibly make more difficult to associate the flag > with "linking an EFI binary".
Indeed. And EFI_PE_COFF is getting a little unwieldy for my taste. > I think some documentaion about the define EFI would be help so there > are no more confusion between CONFIG_EFI/EFI. But I am not sure where to > put it. Maybe at the top of the header? That's perhaps the best place, yes. Jan
