Hello Ard,

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 09:40:42AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> 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
>
Indeed, INTN/UINTN usage is very inconsistent in that header file. I suppose 
you have
considered the 32-bit case when you say you prefer using UNIT64 everywhere, 
thus I have
no objection for that since I always work on 64-bit area. I will hold on this 
patch for a 
while and resend the revised patch if no more comments inputted.

Thanks,
Dennis
> 
> -- 
> Ard.
> 

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

Reply via email to