From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.8867.1581420034621328976
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 03:20:35 -0800
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: intel.com, ip: 134.134.136.20, mailfrom: ray.ni@intel.com)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
  by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Feb 2020 03:20:34 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,428,1574150400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="347261241"
Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203])
  by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2020 03:20:33 -0800
Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.17) by
 FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 03:20:33 -0800
Received: from shsmsx154.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.54) by
 fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 03:20:33 -0800
Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.5]) by
 SHSMSX154.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.141]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000;
 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:20:31 +0800
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.
Thread-Topic: [Patch 1/2] UefiCpuPkg: Remove FIT based microcode shadow
 logic from MpInitLib.
Thread-Index: AQHV4AEhBhe3R0iE6Uek8Q0FdeLylqgV10Aw
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:20:31 +0000
Message-ID: <734D49CCEBEEF84792F5B80ED585239D5C42D6FF@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20200210105849.30472-1-siyuan.fu@intel.com>
 <20200210105849.30472-2-siyuan.fu@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200210105849.30472-2-siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.2.0.6
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Return-Path: ray.ni@intel.com
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> +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 need=
ed
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;=20
  ...
} EDKII_MICROCODE_PATCH_HOB;
which already restricts that the microcode in memory is in continuous memor=
y.

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?