From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.3243.1571059800180275996
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 06:30:00 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D54A30842B0;
	Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:29:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-117-254.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.254])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAA11001B03;
	Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:29:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg/PlatformBootManagerLib: Don't update progress if Pcd is 0
To: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>, devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: afish@apple.com, liming.gao@intel.com
References: <20191011152451.14740-1-pete@akeo.ie>
From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <2a535114-ad9c-8050-c280-def2e01c5b6b@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:29:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191011152451.14740-1-pete@akeo.ie>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.40]); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:29:59 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Pete,

thanks for the patch. I have two requests:

On 10/11/19 17:24, Pete Batard wrote:
> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2266
> 
> Independently of how we decide to address other aspects of the regression
> introduced with commit 2de1f611be06ded3a59726a4052a9039be7d459b, it doesn't
> make much sense to call for a progress update if PcdPlatformBootTimeOut is
> zero.
> 
> PcdPlatformBootTimeOut 0, which is the cause of the bug (division by zero)
> should be considered to indicate that a platform is not interested in
> displaying a progress report, so we alter PlatformBootManagerWaitCallback
> to behave that way.
> 
> We also change one variable name to make the code more explicit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>
> ---
>  OvmfPkg/Library/PlatformBootManagerLib/BdsPlatform.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/OvmfPkg/Library/PlatformBootManagerLib/BdsPlatform.c b/OvmfPkg/Library/PlatformBootManagerLib/BdsPlatform.c
> index 70df6b841acc..352163436e10 100644
> --- a/OvmfPkg/Library/PlatformBootManagerLib/BdsPlatform.c
> +++ b/OvmfPkg/Library/PlatformBootManagerLib/BdsPlatform.c
> @@ -1631,9 +1631,16 @@ PlatformBootManagerWaitCallback (
>  {
>    EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_BLT_PIXEL_UNION Black;
>    EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_BLT_PIXEL_UNION White;
> -  UINT16                              Timeout;
> +  UINT16                              TimeoutInitial;
>  
> -  Timeout = PcdGet16 (PcdPlatformBootTimeOut);
> +  TimeoutInitial = PcdGet16 (PcdPlatformBootTimeOut);
> +
> +  // If PcdPlatformBootTimeOut is set to zero, then we consider
> +  // that no progress update should be enacted (since we'd only
> +  // ever display a one-shot progress of either 0% or 100%).
> +  if (TimeoutInitial == 0) {
> +    return;
> +  }

(1) Please surround the comment block with empty "//" lines, as follows:

  //
  // blah
  //
  if (...) {
    ...
  }

This is more idiomatic, under the edk2 coding style.

>  
>    Black.Raw = 0x00000000;
>    White.Raw = 0x00FFFFFF;
> @@ -1643,7 +1650,7 @@ PlatformBootManagerWaitCallback (
>      Black.Pixel,
>      L"Start boot option",
>      White.Pixel,
> -    (Timeout - TimeoutRemain) * 100 / Timeout,
> +    (TimeoutInitial - TimeoutRemain) * 100 / TimeoutInitial,
>      0
>      );
>  }
> 

(2) Can you please post the same patch for
"ArmVirtPkg/Library/PlatformBootManagerLib/PlatformBm.c" as well?

That would be mean two patches, in a v2 series.

With both (1) and (2) covered, you can add

Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>

to both patches at once.

Thanks!
Laszlo