On 30.03.2022 13:04, Michal Orzel wrote: > Hello, > > On 30.03.2022 12:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >> 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. >> > 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. Jan > Currently EFI macro is > only defined by x86 to link PE/COFF output, however it is not unique to this > architecture." > > Cheers, > Michal >
