> On Aug 19, 2022, at 1:26 AM, Rohit Mathew wrote: > > Hi Swatisri, > > Thanks for the patch. Please find my comments inline marked [Rohit] - > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: devel@edk2.groups.io > On Behalf Of Name >> via groups.io >> Sent: 16 August 2022 21:18 >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io ; Sami Mujawar >; >> Alexei Fedorov >; michael.d.kinney@intel.com ; >> gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn ; zhiguang.liu@intel.com >> Cc: Swatisri Kantamsetti > >> Subject: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Mde Pkg: Support for MPAM ACPI Table >> >> From: Swatisri Kantamsetti >> >> Added MPAM table header, MSC and Resource Node info structures >> >> Signed-off-by: Swatisri Kantamsetti >> --- >> MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi64.h | 5 ++ >> MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Mpam.h | 69 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Mpam.h >> >> diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi64.h >> b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi64.h >> index fe5ebfac2b..e54f631186 100644 >> --- a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi64.h >> +++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi64.h >> @@ -2952,6 +2952,11 @@ typedef struct { >> /// >> #define >> EFI_ACPI_6_4_PROCESSOR_PROPERTIES_TOPOLOGY_TABLE_STRUCTURE_SI >> GNATURE SIGNATURE_32('P', 'P', 'T', 'T') >> >> +/// >> +/// "MPAM" Memory System Resource Partitioning And Monitoring Table >> /// >> +#define >> +EFI_ACPI_6_4_MEMORY_SYSTEM_RESOURCE_PARTITIONING_MONITORI >> NG_TABLE_STRUC >> +TURE_SIGNATURE SIGNATURE_32('M', 'P', 'A', 'M') >> + >> /// >> /// "PSDT" Persistent System Description Table /// diff --git >> a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Mpam.h >> b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Mpam.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000000..e0f75f0114 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Mpam.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ >> +/** @file >> + ACPI Memory System Resource Partitioning And Monitoring (MPAM) >> + as specified in ARM spec DEN0065 >> + >> + Copyright (c) 2022, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved. >> + Copyright (c) 2022, ARM Limited. All rights reserved. >> + SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent **/ >> + >> +#ifndef _MPAM_H_ >> +#define _MPAM_H_ >> + >> +#pragma pack(1) >> + >> +/// >> +/// Memory System Resource Partitioning and Monitoring Table (MPAM) >> /// >> +typedef struct { >> + EFI_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_HEADER Header; >> + UINT32 NumNodes; >> + UINT32 NodeOffset; >> + UINT32 Reserved; >> +} >> +EFI_ACPI_6_4_MEMORY_SYSTEM_RESOURCE_PARTITIONING_MONITORI >> NG_TABLE_HEADE >> +R; > > [Rohit] Shouldn't the header be followed by MSC node body type as defined in MPAM ACPI 1.0, section 2, table 3 - The MPAM table and section 2.1, table 4 - MSC Node body? > >> + >> +/// >> +/// MPAM Revision (as defined in ACPI 6.4 spec.) /// #define >> +EFI_ACPI_6_4_MEMORY_SYSTEM_RESOURCE_PARTITIONING_MONITORI >> NG_TABLE_REVIS >> +ION 0x01 >> + >> +/// >> +/// Memory System Controller Node Structure /// >> + >> +typedef struct { >> + UINT16 Length; >> + UINT16 Reserved; >> + UINT32 Identifier; >> + UINT64 BaseAddress; >> + UINT32 MmioSize; >> + UINT32 OverflowInterrupt; >> + UINT32 OverflowInterruptFlags; > > [Rohit] Would it be better to have a type (possibly bitfield struct) instead of a plain UINT32 for Flags? (MPAM ACPI 1.0, section 2.1.1, table 5 - Interrupt flags) > Probably better NOT to use bitfields in APIs that are produced and consumed by different worlds. While the the UEFI does speak to the bit order of or a bitfield the rules around packing of bitfields is compiler defined. I just saw a bug last week with bitfield compatibility that was introduced by clang fixing its -mms-bitfields implementation. The GCC rules for packing bitfields is different than VC++ so that is why the compiler flag -mms-bitfields exists in the 1st place . A clang -mms-bitfields bug got fixed and it broke the code as the extra padding required by VC++ got added to the bitfield. Thanks, Andrew Fish >> + UINT32 Reserved1; >> + UINT32 OverflowInterruptAff; >> + UINT32 ErrorInterrupt; >> + UINT32 ErrorInterruptFlags; > > [Rohit ] Same comment as before above. > >> + UINT32 Reserved2; >> + UINT32 ErrorInterruptAff; >> + UINT32 MaxNRdyUsec; >> + UINT64 LinkedDeviceHwId; >> + UINT32 LinkedDeviceInstanceHwId; >> + UINT32 NumResourceNodes; >> +} EFI_ACPI_6_4_MPAM_MSC_NODE; >> + >> +/// >> +/// Resource Node Structure >> +/// >> + >> +typedef struct { >> + UINT32 Identifier; >> + UINT8 RisIndex; >> + UINT16 Reserved1; >> + UINT8 LocatorType; >> + UINT64 Locator; > > [Rohit ] Shouldn't " Locator " field be 12 bytes in size, possibly a separate type? (MPAM ACPI 1.0, section 2.2, table 7 - Resource node and section 2.3.2 table 10 - locator descriptor) > >> + UINT32 NumFuncDep; >> +} EFI_ACPI_6_4_MPAM_RESOURCE_NODE; > > [Rohit] Since "NumFuncDep" field is part of EFI_ACPI_6_4_MPAM_RESOURCE_NODE type and this could be non-zero, should we also need the type for functional dependency descriptors? (MPAM ACPI 1.0, section 2.2.1, table 8 - Functional dependency descriptor) > > [Rohit] Also, could some of the commonly used macros be added to this header, please? (location types, MPAM interrupt mode, interrupt types, affinity type, etc) > >> + >> +#pragma pack() >> + >> +#endif >> -- >> 2.17.1 >> >> >> >> >> > > Regards, > Rohit > > > >