Regards, Ray
>-----Original Message----- >From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org] >Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 6:43 PM >To: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com> >Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; >Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; >af...@apple.com; Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> >Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v3 1/5] MdeModulePkg: introduce non-discoverable >device protocol > > >> On 17 Nov 2016, at 08:52, Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks/Ray >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of >>> Ard Biesheuvel >>> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:07 PM >>> To: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com> >>> Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; edk2- >>> de...@lists.01.org; Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; af...@apple.com; >>> Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> >>> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v3 1/5] MdeModulePkg: introduce non- >>> discoverable device protocol >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 17 Nov 2016, at 02:53, Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ard, >>>> I have two comments in below. >>>> >>>> Thanks/Ray >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf >>>>> Of Leif Lindholm >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:49 AM >>>>> To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >>>>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; >>>>> af...@apple.com; Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael >>>>> D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v3 1/5] MdeModulePkg: introduce non- >>>>> discoverable device protocol >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:59:27PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>>>>> Introduce a protocol that can be exposed by a platform for devices >>>>>> that are not discoverable, usually because they are wired straight >>>>>> to the memory bus rather than to an enumerable bus like PCI or USB. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> MdeModulePkg/Include/Protocol/NonDiscoverableDevice.h | 90 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec | 3 + >>>>>> 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Include/Protocol/NonDiscoverableDevice.h >>>>>> b/MdeModulePkg/Include/Protocol/NonDiscoverableDevice.h >>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>> index 000000000000..47ed841b407b >>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Include/Protocol/NonDiscoverableDevice.h >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ >>>>>> +/** @file >>>>>> + Protocol to describe devices that are not on a discoverable bus >>>>>> + >>>>>> + Copyright (c) 2016, Linaro, Ltd. All rights reserved.<BR> >>>>>> + >>>>>> + This program and the accompanying materials are licensed and >>>>>> + made available under the terms and conditions of the BSD License >>>>>> + which accompanies this distribution. The full text of the license >>>>>> + may be found at http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php >>>>>> + >>>>>> + THE PROGRAM IS DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE BSD LICENSE ON AN "AS >>> IS" >>>>>> + BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND, >>>>> EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. >>>>>> + >>>>>> +**/ >>>>>> + >>>>>> +#ifndef __NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_H__ #define >>>>>> +__NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_H__ >>>>>> + >>>>>> +#include <IndustryStandard/Acpi.h> >>>>>> + >>>>>> +#define EDKII_NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_PROTOCOL_GUID \ >>>>>> + { 0x0d51905b, 0xb77e, 0x452a, {0xa2, 0xc0, 0xec, 0xa0, 0xcc, >>>>>> +0x8d, 0x51, 0x4a } } >>>> >>>> 1. Can you add "PCI" keyword into the protocol name? >>>> e.g.: EDKII_NON_DISCOVERABLE_PCI_DEVICE_PROTOCOL_GUID >>>> >>> >>> No. This protocol does not describe pci devices, and it is a peculiarity of >>> the >>> edk2 driver stack that some non-pci devices can only be driven by pci >>> drivers. >>> >>> in other words, pci is part of the /driver/ side, and it is perfectly >>> possible for, >>> e.g., a non-discoverable ahci device to be driven by a different non-pci >>> driver >>> in the future. >>> >> >> I see. So some types of devices are handled by the current >> NonDiscoveablePciDevice driver, and some other types of devices may be >> handled by a future NonDiscoverableXXXDevice driver. >> Now since the AHCI type is already handled by the NonDiscoverablePciDevice >> driver, when there is a new NonDiscoverableXXXDevice driver, how can the two >> know whether it should manage the AHCI type device or not? > >Good question. But how does the UEFI driver model deal with that? What happens >if i have two drivers that both support the >Ahci Pci class codes? PCI CFG header contains VendorID/DeviceID fields which can be used to distinguish them. > >> Besides since now all the EDKII Host Controller drivers are based on >> PciIo, it implicitly requires all the low layer needs to produce PciIo >> interface >> in order to re-use the EDKII Host Controller drivers. >> > >Yes, that is the whole point of these patches. My preferred solution would be >to split the ?hci drivers from pci i/o, by >introducing intermediate protocols, but we both know that is unlikely to be >accepted > >>>>>> + >>>>>> +// >>>>>> +// Protocol interface structure >>>>>> +// >>>>>> +typedef struct _NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE >>>>> NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE; >>>>>> + >>>>>> +// >>>>>> +// Data Types >>>>>> +// >>>>>> +typedef enum { >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeAmba, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeOhci, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeUhci, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeEhci, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeXhci, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeAhci, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeSdhci, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeUfs, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeNvme, >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just one OCD comment/question left: >>>>> Can we keep these sorted alphabetically? >>>>> (Also in switch statements in later patches?) >>>>> >>>>> Other than that, I'm (very) happy with this series. >>>>> >>>>> / >>>>> Leif >>>>> >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceTypeMax, >>>>>> +} NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_TYPE; >>>>>> + >>>>>> +typedef enum { >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceDmaTypeCoherent, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceDmaTypeNonCoherent, >>>>>> + NonDiscoverableDeviceDmaTypeMax, >>>>>> +} NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_DMA_TYPE; >>>>>> + >>>>>> +// >>>>>> +// Function Prototypes >>>>>> +// >>>>>> + >>>>>> +/** >>>>>> + Perform device specific initialization before the device is >>>>>> +started >>>>>> + >>>>>> + @param This The non-discoverable device protocol pointer >>>>>> + >>>>>> + @retval EFI_SUCCESS Initialization successful, the device may be >>> used >>>>>> + @retval Other Initialization failed, device should not be >>>>>> started >>>>>> +**/ >>>>>> +typedef >>>>>> +EFI_STATUS >>>>>> +(EFIAPI *NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_INIT) ( >>>>>> + IN NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE *This >>>>>> + ); >>>>>> + >>>>>> +struct _NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE { >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + // The type of device >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_TYPE Type; >>>> 2. Can you use PCI class code to replace the enum type here? >>>> e.g.: UINT8 Class; UINT8 SubClass; UINT8 Programming Interface; The >>>> enum type can be defined in the helper library. >>>> In this way, we make the protocol definition stable enough. >>>> >>> >>> Again, i think this is a bad idea. This is meant to describe the /device/, >>> not the >>> edk2 implementation detail that some standardized host controller >>> interfaces were implemented in a way that requires pci. It would also make >>> it >>> impossible to describe AMBA devices >> Does AMBA stand for Advanced Microcontroller Bus Architecture? >> I have no idea about the AMBA. >> Can you explain more why it's impossible to describe AMBA devices? >> > >Amba devices are identifiable but not discoverable. If you know the base >address, you know where the id registers are >because they are always at the same register offset > >Thanks, >Ard. > >>> >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + // Whether this device is DMA coherent >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_DMA_TYPE DmaType; >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + // Initialization function for the device >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + NON_DISCOVERABLE_DEVICE_INIT Initialize; >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + // The MMIO and I/O regions owned by the device >>>>>> + // >>>>>> + EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR *Resources; >>>>>> +}; >>>>>> + >>>>>> +extern EFI_GUID gEdkiiNonDiscoverableDeviceProtocolGuid; >>>>>> + >>>>>> +#endif >>>>>> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec >>>>>> b/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec index >>> 74b870051c67..6b956fc80c93 >>>>>> 100644 >>>>>> --- a/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec >>>>>> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec >>>>>> @@ -505,6 +505,9 @@ [Protocols] >>>>>> # Include/Protocol/Ps2Policy.h >>>>>> gEfiPs2PolicyProtocolGuid = { 0x4DF19259, 0xDC71, 0x4D46, { 0xBE, >>>>>> 0xF1, 0x35, 0x7B, 0xB5, 0x78, 0xC4, 0x18 } } >>>>>> >>>>>> + ## Include/Protocol/NonDiscoverableDevice.h >>>>>> + gEdkiiNonDiscoverableDeviceProtocolGuid = { 0x0d51905b, 0xb77e, >>>>>> + 0x452a, {0xa2, 0xc0, 0xec, 0xa0, 0xcc, 0x8d, 0x51, 0x4a } } >>>>>> + >>>>>> # >>>>>> # [Error.gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid] >>>>>> # 0x80000001 | Invalid value provided. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 2.7.4 >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> edk2-devel mailing list >>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org >>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >>> _______________________________________________ >>> edk2-devel mailing list >>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org >>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
