Re: [MULTIBOOT2 DOC PATCH v2 06/11] multiboot2: Add description of EFI image handle tags

[Daniel Kiper]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:59:38PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 24.11.2016 23:40, Daniel Kiper ?????:
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  doc/multiboot.texi |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  doc/multiboot2.h   |   16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/multiboot.texi b/doc/multiboot.texi
> > index cc1edab..dca3e62 100644
> > --- a/doc/multiboot.texi
> > +++ b/doc/multiboot.texi
> > @@ -1288,6 +1288,34 @@ u32     | size = 8          |
> >
> >  This tag indicates ExitBootServices wasn't called
> >
> > address@hidden EFI 32-bit image handle pointer
> > address@hidden
> > address@hidden
> > +        +-------------------+
> > +u32     | type = 19         |
> > +u32     | size = 12         |
> > +u32     | pointer           |
>
> Why it is not u_phys or u_virt as appropriate?

Because I mimic EFI 32-bit/64-bit system table pointer definitions.

> > +        +-------------------+
> > address@hidden group
> > address@hidden example
> > +
> > +This tag contains pointer to EFI i386 image handle.
> > +Usually it is boot loader image handle.
> > +
> > address@hidden EFI 64-bit image handle pointer
> > address@hidden
> > address@hidden
> > +        +-------------------+
> > +u32     | type = 20         |
> > +u32     | size = 16         |
> > +u64     | pointer           |
>
> Same. Again, why there are two tags in the first place? It sounds like

Ditto.

> perfect fit for "data of the same size as target architecture
> [virtual|physical] address size".

Well, I agree that we should remove u_phys/u_virt mess. However, I prefer
to do that later (after 2.02 release) as a part of larger cleanup.

Daniel