On 05.03.2009 21:57, Marc Jones wrote: > Add K8 support for some of the more important MSRs. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Jones <[email protected]> >
If you fix the one bug mentioned below and can provide explanations/answers for my other questions, this is Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > + { 0xC001001A, MSRTYPE_RDWR, MSR2(0, 0), "TOP_MEM Register", "This > register indicates the first byte of I/O above DRAM", { > + { 63, 24, RESERVED }, > + { 39, 8, "TOM 16-9", "", PRESENT_HEX, { > I find the bit numbering in the description string here to be rather unintuitive. IIRC these bits here are not shifted, so "TOM 29-32" would be the correct name. > + { BITVAL_EOT } > + }}, > + { 31, 9, "TOM 8-0", "", PRESENT_HEX, { > Same here. > + { BITVAL_EOT } > + }}, > + { 22, 23, RESERVED }, > + { BITS_EOT } > + }}, > Can TOP_MEM really be larger than 4 GB? > + > + { 0xC001001D, MSRTYPE_RDWR, MSR2(0, 0), "TOP_MEM2 Register", "This > register indicates the Top of Memory above 4GB", { > + { 63, 24, RESERVED }, > + { 39, 8, "TOM2 16-9", "", PRESENT_HEX, { > Bit numbering. > + { BITVAL_EOT } > + }}, > + { 31, 9, "TOM2 8-0", "", PRESENT_HEX, { > Same here. > + { BITVAL_EOT } > + }}, > + { 22, 23, RESERVED }, > + { BITS_EOT } > + }}, > I thought newer AMD processors have more than 40 bit addressable memory. > + { 0xC0010019, MSRTYPE_RDWR, MSR2(0, 0), "IORRMask0", "This register > holds the mask of the variable I/O range", { > Should be IORRMask1. > + { 63, 24, RESERVED }, > + { 39, 8, "MASK 27-20", "", PRESENT_HEX, { > + { BITVAL_EOT } > + }}, > + { 31, 20, "MASK 20-0", "", PRESENT_HEX, { > + { BITVAL_EOT } > + }}, > + { 11, 1, "V:", "Enables variable I/O range registers", > PRESENT_DEC, { > + { MSR1(0), "V I/O range disabled" }, > + { MSR1(1), "V I/O range enabled" }, > + { BITVAL_EOT } > + }}, > + { 10, 11, RESERVED }, > + { BITS_EOT } > + }}, > + > > Index: msrtool/msrutils.c > =================================================================== > --- msrtool.orig/msrutils.c 2009-03-05 11:58:19.000000000 -0700 > +++ msrtool/msrutils.c 2009-03-02 15:40:13.000000000 -0700 > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ > return NULL; > } > > -const uint32_t msraddrbyname(const char *name) { > +uint32_t msraddrbyname(const char *name) { > Any reason for the const removal? The changelog doesn't say anything about it. > uint8_t t; > const uint32_t addr = strtoul(name, NULL, 16); > const struct msrdef *m; > Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
