Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86_64 EFI support -v3: EFI document

["huang ying" <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>]

On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > Instead, elilo collects the needed information
> > defined in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h itself,
>
> That's nasty. I must have missed when we declared this a public ABI.
> It's not really designed to be one. Was there public discussion on this?

Maybe What I said is not clear and correct. In fact, the elilo follows
the boot protocol defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt, just
not uses arch/(i386|x86_64)/boot/setup.S to collect the information,
but collects them by elilo itself. Information in
include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h is just a part of that in
Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt.

> I expect we'll have some grief from this in the future.
>
> If it's really done this way we should at least add a version
> number and a boot loader ID like the standard boot protocol
> so that bugs later can be worked around. Also some Documentation
> would be good. And comments. But discussion first.
>

Is what defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt the standard boot
protocol. If it is, the elilo follows it. My previous expressing is
not clear and correct.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying