Apart from the request to break out Ac01PcieConfigRW and
Ac01PcieCfgIn/Out# I noticed a further thing.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 22:55:11 +0700, Nhi Pham wrote:
> +/**
> + Get RootBridge disable status.
> +
> + @param[in] HBIndex Index to identify of PCIE Host bridge.
> + @param[in] RBIndex Index to identify of underneath PCIE
> Root bridge.
> +
> + @retval BOOLEAN Return RootBridge disable status.
> +**/
> +BOOLEAN
> +Ac01PcieCheckRootBridgeDisabled (
> + IN UINTN HBIndex,
> + IN UINTN RBIndex
> + )
> +{
> + UINTN RCIndex;
> + INT8 Ret;
> +
> + RCIndex = HBIndex;
> + Ret = !RCList[RCIndex].Active;
> + if (Ret) {
> + PciList[HBIndex] = -1;
> + } else {
> + PciList[HBIndex] = HBIndex;
> + }
> + if (HBIndex == (AC01_MAX_PCIE_ROOT_COMPLEX -1)) {
> + SortPciList (PciList);
> + if (!IsSlaveSocketPresent ()) {
> + AcpiPatchPciMem32 (PciList);
> + }
> + AcpiInstallMcfg (PciList);
> + AcpiInstallIort (PciList);
Should a function named "Check if RootBridge is Disabled" really have
the undocumented side effect of going off and installing ACPI tables?
Please move that logic over to PciHostBridgeReadyToBootEvent.
With that, I think this revision is fully reviewed.
/
Leif
> + }
> + return Ret;
> +}
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#81219): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81219
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/85631150/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
