* [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit
@ 2016-10-17 5:03 Dennis Chen
2016-10-17 7:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dennis Chen @ 2016-10-17 5:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: edk2-devel; +Cc: nd, Dennis Chen, Ard Biesheuvel, Leif Lindholm
Since ACPI spec defines the GIC base addresses (CPU interface,
Distributor and Redistributor*GICv3 only*) as 64-bit, so we
should define these corresponding base address variables as 64-bit
instead of 32-bit. This patch redefines them according to the
ACPI spec.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@arm.com>
---
ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c | 4 ++--
ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c | 8 ++++----
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
index b9ecd55..a4ba5cf 100644
--- a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
+++ b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
@@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ Abstract:
extern EFI_HARDWARE_INTERRUPT_PROTOCOL gHardwareInterruptV2Protocol;
-STATIC UINT32 mGicInterruptInterfaceBase;
-STATIC UINT32 mGicDistributorBase;
+STATIC UINTN mGicInterruptInterfaceBase;
+STATIC UINTN mGicDistributorBase;
/**
Enable interrupt source Source.
diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644
--- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
+++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
@@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
// RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size }
DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
- ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
+ ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
// RegProp[2..3] == { GICR base, GICR size }
RedistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
- ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT32);
+ ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT64);
PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
PcdSet64 (PcdGicRedistributorsBase, RedistBase);
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
CpuBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
- ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
- ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT32);
+ ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
+ ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT64);
PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
PcdSet64 (PcdGicInterruptInterfaceBase, CpuBase);
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit
2016-10-17 5:03 [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit Dennis Chen
@ 2016-10-17 7:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-10-17 7:44 ` Dennis Chen
2016-10-17 8:33 ` Leif Lindholm
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2016-10-17 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis Chen; +Cc: edk2-devel-01, nd, Leif Lindholm
Hi Dennis,
On 17 October 2016 at 06:03, Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@arm.com> wrote:
> Since ACPI spec defines the GIC base addresses (CPU interface,
> Distributor and Redistributor*GICv3 only*) as 64-bit, so we
> should define these corresponding base address variables as 64-bit
> instead of 32-bit. This patch redefines them according to the
> ACPI spec.
>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@arm.com>
> ---
> ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c | 4 ++--
> ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c | 8 ++++----
Could you split this patch in 2 please, and put Laszlo Ersek on cc for
the ArmVirtPkg patch?
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
> index b9ecd55..a4ba5cf 100644
> --- a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
> +++ b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
> @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ Abstract:
>
> extern EFI_HARDWARE_INTERRUPT_PROTOCOL gHardwareInterruptV2Protocol;
>
> -STATIC UINT32 mGicInterruptInterfaceBase;
> -STATIC UINT32 mGicDistributorBase;
> +STATIC UINTN mGicInterruptInterfaceBase;
> +STATIC UINTN mGicDistributorBase;
>
This should be UINT64 not UINTN
> /**
> Enable interrupt source Source.
> diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644
> --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
>
> // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size }
> DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
>
This becomes equivalent to 'DistBase != MAX_UINT64' given that a
UINT64 cannot exceed MAX_UINT64. That is a nonsensical thing to
assert, so it is better to simply drop it
> // RegProp[2..3] == { GICR base, GICR size }
> RedistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> - ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> + ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT64);
>
Likewise
> PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> PcdSet64 (PcdGicRedistributorsBase, RedistBase);
> @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
>
> DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> CpuBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> - ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT32);
> + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> + ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT64);
>
Likewise
> PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> PcdSet64 (PcdGicInterruptInterfaceBase, CpuBase);
> --
> 2.7.4
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit
2016-10-17 7:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2016-10-17 7:44 ` Dennis Chen
2016-10-17 8:33 ` Leif Lindholm
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dennis Chen @ 2016-10-17 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel; +Cc: edk2-devel-01, nd, Leif Lindholm
Hello Ard,
Thanks for the comments! I will split this patch into 2 and for ArmVirtPkg patch,
we just need to simply drop the original ASSERT() since it's nonsensical any more.
Thanks,
Dennis
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:28:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> On 17 October 2016 at 06:03, Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@arm.com> wrote:
> > Since ACPI spec defines the GIC base addresses (CPU interface,
> > Distributor and Redistributor*GICv3 only*) as 64-bit, so we
> > should define these corresponding base address variables as 64-bit
> > instead of 32-bit. This patch redefines them according to the
> > ACPI spec.
> >
> > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@arm.com>
> > ---
> > ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c | 4 ++--
> > ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c | 8 ++++----
>
> Could you split this patch in 2 please, and put Laszlo Ersek on cc for
> the ArmVirtPkg patch?
>
>
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
> > index b9ecd55..a4ba5cf 100644
> > --- a/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
> > +++ b/ArmPkg/Drivers/ArmGic/GicV2/ArmGicV2Dxe.c
> > @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ Abstract:
> >
> > extern EFI_HARDWARE_INTERRUPT_PROTOCOL gHardwareInterruptV2Protocol;
> >
> > -STATIC UINT32 mGicInterruptInterfaceBase;
> > -STATIC UINT32 mGicDistributorBase;
> > +STATIC UINTN mGicInterruptInterfaceBase;
> > +STATIC UINTN mGicDistributorBase;
> >
>
> This should be UINT64 not UINTN
>
> > /**
> > Enable interrupt source Source.
> > diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644
> > --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
> >
> > // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size }
> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> This becomes equivalent to 'DistBase != MAX_UINT64' given that a
> UINT64 cannot exceed MAX_UINT64. That is a nonsensical thing to
> assert, so it is better to simply drop it
>
> > // RegProp[2..3] == { GICR base, GICR size }
> > RedistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> > - ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> Likewise
>
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicRedistributorsBase, RedistBase);
> > @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
> >
> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> > CpuBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > - ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> > + ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> Likewise
>
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicInterruptInterfaceBase, CpuBase);
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit
2016-10-17 7:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-10-17 7:44 ` Dennis Chen
@ 2016-10-17 8:33 ` Leif Lindholm
2016-10-17 9:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leif Lindholm @ 2016-10-17 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel; +Cc: Dennis Chen, edk2-devel-01
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:28:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644
> > --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
> >
> > // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size }
> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> This becomes equivalent to 'DistBase != MAX_UINT64' given that a
> UINT64 cannot exceed MAX_UINT64. That is a nonsensical thing to
> assert, so it is better to simply drop it
Random thought:
Could we keep the assert(s) and change the test to MAX_UINTN, to have
a sanity test over whether a 32-bit plaform ends up with a duff
address?
/
Leif
> > // RegProp[2..3] == { GICR base, GICR size }
> > RedistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> > - ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> Likewise
>
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicRedistributorsBase, RedistBase);
> > @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
> >
> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> > CpuBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > - ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> > + ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> Likewise
>
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicInterruptInterfaceBase, CpuBase);
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit
2016-10-17 8:33 ` Leif Lindholm
@ 2016-10-17 9:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-10-17 9:27 ` Leif Lindholm
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2016-10-17 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leif Lindholm; +Cc: Dennis Chen, edk2-devel-01
On 17 October 2016 at 09:33, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:28:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
>> > index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644
>> > --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
>> > +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
>> > @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
>> >
>> > // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size }
>> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
>> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
>> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
>> >
>>
>> This becomes equivalent to 'DistBase != MAX_UINT64' given that a
>> UINT64 cannot exceed MAX_UINT64. That is a nonsensical thing to
>> assert, so it is better to simply drop it
>
> Random thought:
> Could we keep the assert(s) and change the test to MAX_UINTN, to have
> a sanity test over whether a 32-bit plaform ends up with a duff
> address?
>
That seems like a useful thing in general, but given that we don't do
that anywhere else, I'd rather we just remove them.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit
2016-10-17 9:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2016-10-17 9:27 ` Leif Lindholm
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leif Lindholm @ 2016-10-17 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel; +Cc: Dennis Chen, edk2-devel-01
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:20:30AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 October 2016 at 09:33, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:28:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> >> > index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644
> >> > --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> >> > +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> >> > @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
> >> >
> >> > // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size }
> >> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> >> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> >> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >> >
> >>
> >> This becomes equivalent to 'DistBase != MAX_UINT64' given that a
> >> UINT64 cannot exceed MAX_UINT64. That is a nonsensical thing to
> >> assert, so it is better to simply drop it
> >
> > Random thought:
> > Could we keep the assert(s) and change the test to MAX_UINTN, to have
> > a sanity test over whether a 32-bit plaform ends up with a duff
> > address?
>
> That seems like a useful thing in general, but given that we don't do
> that anywhere else, I'd rather we just remove them.
I won't argue with that.
/
Leif
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-17 9:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-10-17 5:03 [PATCH] ArmPkg ArmVirtPkg: fix the GIC base address variables as 64-bit Dennis Chen
2016-10-17 7:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-10-17 7:44 ` Dennis Chen
2016-10-17 8:33 ` Leif Lindholm
2016-10-17 9:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-10-17 9:27 ` Leif Lindholm
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox