From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ZXSHCAS1.zhaoxin.com (ZXSHCAS1.zhaoxin.com [203.148.12.81]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.4266.1588067343274968149 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 02:49:03 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: zhaoxin.com, ip: 203.148.12.81, mailfrom: boonewang@zhaoxin.com) Received: from ZXSHMBX1.zhaoxin.com (10.28.252.163) by ZXSHCAS1.zhaoxin.com (10.28.252.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:48:52 +0800 Received: from ZXSHMBX2.zhaoxin.com (10.28.252.164) by ZXSHMBX1.zhaoxin.com (10.28.252.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:48:52 +0800 Received: from ZXSHMBX2.zhaoxin.com ([fe80::a8dc:3993:147d:2f98]) by ZXSHMBX2.zhaoxin.com ([fe80::a8dc:3993:147d:2f98%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:48:52 +0800 From: boonewang@zhaoxin.com To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" CC: "dandan.bi@intel.com" Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v2 8/8] ShellPkg/Dp: Updated to dump perf log based on FPDT table Thread-Topic: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v2 8/8] ShellPkg/Dp: Updated to dump perf log based on FPDT table Thread-Index: AdYdQcdJPeclgXDQRryrOItYBp1Ynw== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:48:52 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.32.64.94] MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: BooneWang@zhaoxin.com Content-Language: zh-CN Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_abc26c8d51d9452bbdaa576942b8947fzhaoxincom_" --_000_abc26c8d51d9452bbdaa576942b8947fzhaoxincom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have seen an email named " [edk2] [PATCH v2 8/8] ShellPkg/Dp: Updated to = dump perf log based on FPDT table " in mail-archive" and I know there is an= update of Dp. But I feel uncertain that: - // Determine in which direction the performance counter counts. - TimerInfo.CountUp =3D (BOOLEAN) (TimerInfo.EndCount >=3D TimerInfo.Start= Count); + TimerInfo.StartCount =3D 0; + TimerInfo.EndCount =3D 0xFFFF; + TimerInfo.CountUp =3D TRUE; So it looks like we would not use timer count down feature, does it mean we= should use count up timer such as TSC or ACPI Timer? Maybe is there any ot= her cause? Best Regards! Boone Wang ????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? CONFIDENTIAL NOTE: This email contains confidential or legally privileged information and is f= or the sole use of its intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use, co= pying or forwarding of this email or the content of this email is strictly = prohibited. --_000_abc26c8d51d9452bbdaa576942b8947fzhaoxincom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I have = seen an email named “ [edk2] [PATCH v2 8/8] ShellPkg/Dp: Updated to dump perf log = based on FPDT table “ in mail-archive= 221; and I know there is an update of Dp.

But I f= eel uncertain that:

-  // Dete=
rmine in which direction the performance counter counts.<=
/pre>

-  TimerIn=
fo.CountUp =3D (BOOLEAN) (TimerInfo.EndCount >=3D TimerInfo.StartCount);=



+  Tim=
erInfo.StartCount =3D 0;


+  Tim=
erInfo.EndCount   =3D 0xFFFF;


+  Tim=
erInfo.CountUp =3D TRUE;


So it l=
ooks like we would not use timer count down feature, does it mean we=
 should use count up timer such as TSC or ACPI Timer? Maybe is there any ot=
her cause?


 


 


Best Regards!


Boone Wang


 



保密声明：
本邮件含有保भ= 4;或专有信息，仅供指&= #23450;收件人使用。严禁= 545;本邮件或其内容做任= ;何未经授权的查阅、&#= 20351;用、复制或转发。
CONFIDENTIAL NOTE:
This email contains confidential or legally privileged information and i= s for the sole use of its intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use,= copying or forwarding of this email or the content of this email is strict= ly prohibited.
--_000_abc26c8d51d9452bbdaa576942b8947fzhaoxincom_--