On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 17:14, Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/03/19 12:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Jagadeesh Ujja <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Some of the existing DXE drivers can be refactored to execute within > >> the Standalone MM execution environment as well. Allow such drivers to > >> get access to the Standalone MM services tables. > >> > >> Add a mechanism to determine the execution mode is required. > >> i.e, in MM or non-MM > >> > >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 > >> Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Ujja <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> MdePkg/Include/Library/StandaloneMmServicesTableLib.h > >> | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> MdePkg/Library/StandaloneMmServicesTableLib/StandaloneMmServicesTableLib.c > >> | 39 ++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> MdePkg/Library/StandaloneMmServicesTableLib/StandaloneMmServicesTableLib.inf > >> | 36 ++++++++++++++++ > >> MdePkg/MdePkg.dec > >> | 4 ++ > >> 4 files changed, 122 insertions(+) > >> > > > > OK, so since the PI spec only refers to MM mode now, this library > > class should be > > > > MmServicesTableLib|Include/Library/MmServicesTableLib.h > > > > with an implementation in MdeModulePkg that exposes the deprecated SMM > > system table as the MM system table. > > > > In StandaloneMmPkg, we can add an implementation that exposes the > > standalone MM system table. > > > > (They are binary compatible, so it is just a matter of casting one > > pointer to the other) > > > > With this in place, we can go ahead and update FaultTolerantWrite and > > Variable SMM driver to switch from SmmServicesTableLib to > > MmServicesTableLib. This will require existing x86 platforms to define > > a new library class resolution for MmServicesTableLib, referring to > > the implementation in MdeModulePkg. This is unfortunate, but it is an > > unavoidable consequence of the PI spec changes. > > It shouldn't be too intrusive or hard to review, I expect. > > > > > Remaining question is what to do with InSmm() ... > > I'm lacking the context on this; on the other hand, I can refer back to > at least one earlier discussion -- there had been multiple -- of the > discrepancy between the PI spec and the edk2 code. See: > > - bullet (9) in > <http://mid.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>, > - and > <http://mid.mail-archive.com/0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483103BB55B46@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>. > > Not sure how that can be applied to Arm. >
The code I posted yesterday does not use InMm() at all. For standalone MM, it should always return TRUE anyway, and any code that a driver would execute if it returned FALSE needs to be factored out anyway, since it should not end up in standalone MM binaries as dead code. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
