On 18 October 2016 at 03:50, Dennis Chen <dennis.c...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hello Ard,
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 06:09:00PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 17 October 2016 at 09:54, Dennis Chen <dennis.c...@arm.com> wrote:
>> > Since ACPI spec defines the GIC base addresses (CPU interface,
>> > Distributor and Redistributor*GICv3 only*) as 64-bit, so we should
>> > define these corresponding base address variables as 64-bit instead of
>> > 32-bit. This patch redefines them according to the ACPI spec.
>> >
>> > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
>> > Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Dennis Chen <dennis.c...@arm.com>
>>
>> After a closer look, I noticed the following:
>>
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          GicDistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  UINTN         GicDistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          GicDistributorBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          GicDistributorBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          GicDistributorBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          GicDistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  UINTN
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  UINTN
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN UINTN
>> GicDistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN UINTN
>> GicRedistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN UINTN
>> GicDistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN UINTN
>> GicRedistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN UINTN
>> GicDistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN UINTN
>> GicRedistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          GicDistributorBase,
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  INTN          
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN  UINTN
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase
>> ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmGicLib.h:  IN UINTN
>> GicInterruptInterfaceBase,
>>
>> so I think we need to clean up the use of these values more widely
>> than we have done up till now
>>
> I am not very sure if we still need to support UEFI on 32-bit ARM platform, 
> as Leif mentioned
> if we use INTN or UINTN that will be more generic to embrace both 32 &64-bit 
> platform, at least
> in form of. Currently we are only focused on 64-bit platform, let's wait for 
> Leif's comment then
> I can re-work my patch to adapt it after we have reached a wider agreement.
>

Hi Dennis,

My primary concern is the sloppiness regarding INTN/UINTN, so it seem
a major cleanup is due. I'd prefer using UINT64 everywhere: we can
still assert that an UINT64 *value* does not exceed MAX_UINTN if we
want to

-- 
Ard.
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to