Hello Laszlo, On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:02:45AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 10/21/16 07:50, Dennis Chen wrote: > > Since All the GIC base address variables has been aligned to 64-bit, it > > doesn't make sense to continue use MAX_UINT32 in ASSERT() statement, so > > this patch uses MAX_UINTN to adapt to this kind of change. > > > > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> > > Cc: Leif Lindholm <[email protected]> > > Cc: Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Dennis Chen <[email protected]> > > --- > > ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c | 8 ++++---- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c > > b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c > > index 64afc4d..6488061 100644 > > --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c > > +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c > > @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor ( > > > > // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size } > > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]); > > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32); > > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINTN); > > > > // RegProp[2..3] == { GICR base, GICR size } > > RedistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]); > > - ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT32); > > + ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINTN); > > > > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase); > > PcdSet64 (PcdGicRedistributorsBase, RedistBase); > > @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor ( > > > > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]); > > CpuBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]); > > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32); > > - ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT32); > > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINTN); > > + ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINTN); > > > > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase); > > PcdSet64 (PcdGicInterruptInterfaceBase, CpuBase); > > > > Ard, can you please handle this iteration of the patch as well? > > I do have one suggestion, for the subject: > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtGicArchLib: adapt ASSERT()s to 64-bit base addresses > > If you guys agree, I think it can be done on commit. With that, >
I think Ard will not have any reason to reject this nice suggestion :), so do I. so it's a deal... Thanks, Dennis > > Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> > > Thanks > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
