By the way, please rebase to the latest code when sending out
the V2 patch.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ni, Ray
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:21 PM
> To: Fu, Siyuan <siyuan...@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>;
> Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [Patch 1/2] UefiCpuPkg: Remove FIT based microcode shadow logic
> from MpInitLib.
>
>
> > +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?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#54196): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54196
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/71134279/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
