Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] arm/efi: Use dom0less configuration when using EFI boot

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 01.10.2021 15:55, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 1 Oct 2021, at 12:02, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 30.09.2021 16:28, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> @@ -1361,12 +1361,30 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE 
>>> *SystemTable)
>>>         efi_bs->FreePages(cfg.addr, PFN_UP(cfg.size));
>>>         cfg.addr = 0;
>>>
>>> -        dir_handle->Close(dir_handle);
>>> -
>>>         if ( gop && !base_video )
>>>             gop_mode = efi_find_gop_mode(gop, cols, rows, depth);
>>>     }
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE
>>> +    /* Get the number of boot modules specified on the DT or an error (<0) 
>>> */
>>> +    dt_modules_found = efi_arch_check_dt_boot(dir_handle);
>>> +#endif
>>
>> So I had asked to add a stub enclosed in such an #ifdef, to avoid the
>> #ifdef here. I may be willing to let you keep things as you have them
>> now, but I'd like to understand why you've picked that different
>> approach despite the prior discussion.
> 
> There must be a misunderstanding, your message in the v3 was:
> 
> "Every time I see this addition I'm getting puzzled. As a result I'm
> afraid I now need to finally ask you to do something about this (and
> I'm sorry for doing so only now). There would better be no notion of
> DT in x86 code, and there would better also not be a need for
> architectures not supporting DT to each supply such a stub. Instead
> I think you want to put this stub in xen/common/efi/boot.c, inside a
> suitable #ifdef.”
> 
> So I thought you wanted me to remove the stub in x86 (since it doesn’t 
> support DT)
> and put this call under #ifdef so it won’t be compiled for arch not 
> supporting DT.

So FTAOD I'll repeat the crucial part: "I think you want to put this
stub in xen/common/efi/boot.c". There was nothing about removing the
stub altogether.

Jan