From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D240B211518C4 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 02:41:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 59E3788E52; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-8.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.8]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F561106A78A; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:41:53 +0000 (UTC) To: "Ni, Ruiyu" , Eric Dong , edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Michael D Kinney References: <20180921074133.9140-1-eric.dong@intel.com> <20180921074133.9140-9-eric.dong@intel.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <53768691-df03-b8d8-66c1-938a37fe3d77@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:41:52 +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: 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 [10.5.110.25]); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Patch v2 08/14] UefiCpuPkg/Include/Register/ArchitecturalMsr.h: Change structure definition. X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:41:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 09/21/18 10:44, Ni, Ruiyu wrote: > On 9/21/2018 3:41 PM, Eric Dong wrote: >>       UINT32  User:1; >> -    UINT32  Reserved1:2; >> +    /// >> +    /// [Bit 4] PwrEvtEn. >> +    /// >> +    UINT32  PwrEvtEn:1; >> +    /// >> +    /// [Bit 5] FUPonPTW. >> +    /// >> +    UINT32  FUPonPTW:1; >>       /// >>       /// [Bit 6] FabricEn. If (CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0):ECX[3] = 1). >>       /// >> @@ -4672,7 +4679,10 @@ typedef union { >>       /// [Bit 11] DisRETC. >>       /// >>       UINT32  DisRETC:1; >> -    UINT32  Reserved2:1; >> +    /// >> +    /// [Bit 12] PTWEn. >> +    /// >> +    UINT32  PTWEn:1; >>       /// >>       /// [Bit 13] BranchEn. >>       /// >> @@ -4681,17 +4691,17 @@ typedef union { >>       /// [Bits 17:14] MTCFreq. If (CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0):EBX[3] = 1). >>       /// >>       UINT32  MTCFreq:4; >> -    UINT32  Reserved3:1; >> +    UINT32  Reserved7:1; > > I prefer to not change this field name since the bit range for this > Reserved6 is not changed. > >>       /// >>       /// [Bits 22:19] CYCThresh. If (CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0):EBX[1] = 1). >>       /// >>       UINT32  CYCThresh:4; >> -    UINT32  Reserved4:1; >> +    UINT32  Reserved8:1; > > I prefer to not change this field name since the bit range for this > Reserved6 is not changed. > >>       /// >>       /// [Bits 27:24] PSBFreq. If (CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0):EBX[1] = 1). >>       /// >>       UINT32  PSBFreq:4; >> -    UINT32  Reserved5:4; >> +    UINT32  Reserved9:4; > > I prefer to not change this field name since the bit range for this > Reserved6 is not changed. > >>       /// >>       /// [Bits 35:32] ADDR0_CFG. If (CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=1):EAX[2:0] >> > 0). >>       /// >> @@ -4708,7 +4718,7 @@ typedef union { >>       /// [Bits 47:44] ADDR3_CFG. If (CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=1):EAX[2:0] >> > 3). >>       /// >>       UINT32  ADDR3_CFG:4; >> -    UINT32  Reserved6:16; >> +    UINT32  Reserved10:16; > > I prefer to not change this field name since the bit range for this > Reserved6 is not changed. > >>     } Bits; > > > Eric, > As comments above, I suggest we keep the original Reserved## name if the > bit range for that field doesn't change. We can only update the > Reserved## name if the bit range changes. > > In this way, we can maximally avoid build failure and also avoid silent > failure. > > In general, the Reserved## name is updated when the bit range changes. > The ## is updated to > 1 + MAX (all numbers used by Reserved## in this structure). > > > Laszlo, > What's your opinion? > I agree with your suggestion. Thanks Laszlo