public inbox for devel@edk2.groups.io
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>
To: "Fu, Siyuan" <siyuan.fu@intel.com>,
	"devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: "Dong, Eric" <eric.dong@intel.com>,
	Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>,
	"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/2] UefiCpuPkg: Remove FIT based microcode shadow logic from MpInitLib.
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:20:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <734D49CCEBEEF84792F5B80ED585239D5C42D6FF@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200210105849.30472-2-siyuan.fu@intel.com>


> +typedef
> +EFI_STATUS
> +(EFIAPI *EDKII_PEI_SHADOW_MICROCODE) (
> +  IN  EDKII_PEI_SHADOW_MICROCODE_PPI        *This,
> +  IN  UINTN                                 CpuIdCount,
> +  IN  EDKII_PEI_CPU_MICROCODE_ID            *MicrocodeCpuId,

1. How about CpuMicrocodeId or EDKII_PEI_MICROCODE_CPU_ID?
I'd like to keep the name and type be matched.


> +  OUT UINTN                                 *BufferSize,
> +  OUT VOID                                  **Buffer
2. I remember that we offline discussed that Buffer/BufferSize are not needed
to be part of the parameters. It can provide better flexibility that doesn't require
the microcode in memory is in continuous memory.
Why are they still in the parameters?

OK. I see now. Because EDKII_MICROCODE_PATCH_HOB contains below fields:
typedef struct {
  UINT64    MicrocodePatchAddress;
  UINT64    MicrocodePatchRegionSize; 
  ...
} EDKII_MICROCODE_PATCH_HOB;
which already restricts that the microcode in memory is in continuous memory.

I'm ok with this.

> +EFI_STATUS
> +PlatformShadowMicrocode (
> +  IN OUT CPU_MP_DATA             *CpuMpData
> +  )
> +{
> +  return EFI_NOT_FOUND;

3. Can you add comments to say that microcode shadow
in DXE only supports the location identified by PCD?
4. How about returning EFI_UNSUPPORTED?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-02-11 11:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-10 10:58 [Patch 0/2] Move FIT based microcode shadow to platform PEIM Siyuan, Fu
2020-02-10 10:58 ` [Patch 1/2] UefiCpuPkg: Remove FIT based microcode shadow logic from MpInitLib Siyuan, Fu
2020-02-10 15:54   ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-02-11 11:20   ` Ni, Ray [this message]
2020-02-11 11:23     ` Ni, Ray
2020-02-11 13:51       ` Siyuan, Fu
2020-02-10 10:58 ` [Patch 2/2] MdePkg: Remove FIT table industry standard header file Siyuan, Fu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=734D49CCEBEEF84792F5B80ED585239D5C42D6FF@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox