Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3 -v4] x86_64 EFI runtime service support: EFI basic runtime service support | From | "Huang, Ying" <> | Date | Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:05:38 +0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 12:31 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:03:11 +0800 > "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 18:09 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > EFI runtime > > > > services initialization are implemented in efi.c. Some x86_64 > > > > specifics are worth noting here. On x86_64, parameters passed to UEFI > > > > firmware services need to follow the UEFI calling convention. For this > > > > purpose, a set of functions named lin2win<x> (<x> is the number of > > > > parameters) are implemented. EFI function calls are wrapped before > > > > calling the firmware service. > > > > > > Why needs this to be called lin2win? We do not call Windows, we call > > > EFI services, so please use a naming convention which is related to > > > the functionality of the code. > > > > > > > + * > > > > + * Function calling ABI conversion from SYSV to Windows for x86_64 > > > > > > Again, these are wrappers to access EFI and not Windows. > > > > EFI uses the Windows x86_64 calling convention. The lin2win may be a > > more general naming convention that can be used for some other code (the > > NDISwrapper?) in the future. Do you agree? > > The SYSV description is wrong as well. SYSV has no calling convention. I > think you mean iABI or iBCS2 ?
The SYSV description comes from the following document: http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi-0.98.pdf
> Whats wrong with following the pattern of other calls like syscall(...) > and just having eficall() ?
Yes. This is better.
Best Regards, Huang Ying - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |