Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFIfacilities

[Tim Gardner]

On 01/04/2013 09:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >   /*
> > > - * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible, remove
> > > - * EFI-related code altogether.
> > > + * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if
> > > + * possible, remove EFI-related code altogether.
> > >    */
> > > +#define EFI_BOOT		0x00000001 /* Were we booted from EFI? */
> > > +#define EFI_SYSTEM_TABLES	0x00000002 /* Can we use EFI system tables? */
> > > +#define EFI_CONFIG_TABLES	0x00000004 /* Can we use EFI config tables? */
> > > +#define EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES	0x00000004 /* Can we use runtime services? */
> > > +#define EFI_MEMMAP		0x00000008 /* Can we use EFI memory map? */
> > > +#define EFI_64BIT		0x00000010 /* Is the firmware 64-bit? */
> > > +
> >
> > Your use of test_bit() and set_bit() imply that these macros should be
> > bit numbers, not bit masks. It'll work until you define a mask with an
> > integer value greater then 31.
>
> They're not intended to be bitmasks in the sense that no two bits are
> set in each constant (and I am aware of the upper limit).
>
> I have no problem changing the above values to bit numbers if that would
> be less confusing.

When you do change them to bit numbers you should also note that 
EFI_CONFIG_TABLES and EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES have the same value, which I 
believe is in error.

rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/