On 30.03.2022 15:30, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 30/03/2022 14:24, Michal Orzel wrote: >> >> >> On 30.03.2022 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 30.03.2022 14:13, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>> On 30.03.2022 13:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 30.03.2022 13:04, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>>>> On 30.03.2022 12:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 30.03.2022 12:32, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> In this case how about the following comment at the top of xen.lds.h: >>>>>> >>>>>> "To avoid any confusion about EFI macro used in this header vs EFI >>>>>> support, >>>>>> the former is used when linking a native EFI (i.e. PE/COFF) binary, >>>>>> whereas >>>>>> the latter means support for generating EFI binary. >>>>> >>>>> No, that's the case on Arm only. As Julien suggested, it is perhaps best >>>>> to explain the difference between EFI and CONFIG_EFI, without going into >>>>> arch specifics. >>>> Could you please tell me what you are reffering to as there is no such >>>> identifier >>>> in Xen (as opposed to Linux) like CONFIG_EFI ? >>> >>> Let's call it a "virtual" CONFIG_EFI then; I think we really should have >>> such an option. But yes, if you don't like referring to such a virtual >>> option, then describing what is meant verbally is certainly going to be >>> fine. >>> >> FWICS, there was an attempt done by Wei in his NUMA series to define >> CONFIG_EFI. >> However as this is not yet merged and agreed, I would like not to refer to >> identifiers >> not existing in the code, even though most people are familiar with this >> option from Linux. >> >> So by taking an example from Linux I would verbally explain it like that: >> "To avoid any confusion, please note that EFI macro does not correspond to >> EFI >> runtime support and is used when linking a native EFI (i.e. PE/COFF) binary, >> hence its > > "EFI runtime support" can be mistakenly associated to EFI runtime > services (which BTW not supported on Arm). So I would suggest to > s/runtime/boot/.
Or simply just "EFI support"? Jan
