On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 07:34, Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gaurav Jain [mailto:gaurav.j...@nxp.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:18 PM
> > To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > Cc: Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; Ni, Ray; Pankaj Bansal; Gaurav Jain
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/Pci: Fixed Asserts in SCT PCIIO Protocol
> > Test.
> >
> > ASSERT in CopyMem_Conf, PollMem_Conf, SetBarAttributes_Conf
> > Conformance Test.
> > SCT Test expect return as Invalid Parameter.
> > So removed ASSERT().
>
>
> Include Ard (as the driver contributor) to see if he has additional comments.
>
> A couple of general level comments:
> 1. I think the ASSERT can still be added after the checks you add. The ASSERT
> may serve as a notification in the DEBUG image that the service is not
> implemented.
>
Agreed.
> 2. I found that for functions:
> PciIoPollIo()
> PciIoIoRead()
> PciIoIoWrite()
> They also do not have checks that perfectly match with the UEFI spec. Even
> though they are not exposed by the SCT tests, could you help to address
> them
> as well?
>
> Some other inline comments below.
>
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gaurav Jain <gaurav.j...@nxp.com>
> > ---
> > .../NonDiscoverablePciDeviceIo.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > index 2d55c9699322..76cb000602fc 100644
> > ---
> > a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > +++
> > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/NonDiscoverablePciDeviceDxe/NonDiscoverableP
> > ciDeviceIo.c
> > @@ -93,7 +93,15 @@ PciIoPollMem (
> > OUT UINT64 *Result
> > )
> > {
> > - ASSERT (FALSE);
> > + if ((UINT32)Width >= EfiPciIoWidthMaximum ||
>
>
> Looks to me that the 1st part of the 'if' check is redundant.
> Could you help to double confirm?
>
>
> > + Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (Result == NULL) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -556,7 +564,10 @@ PciIoCopyMem (
> > IN UINTN Count
> > )
> > {
> > - ASSERT (FALSE);
> > + if ((UINT32)Width >= EfiPciIoWidthMaximum ||
>
>
> Looks to me that the 1st part of the 'if' check is redundant.
> Could you help to double confirm?
>
> Best Regards,
> Hao Wu
>
>
> > + Width > EfiPciIoWidthUint64) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1414,7 +1425,10 @@ PciIoSetBarAttributes (
> > IN OUT UINT64 *Length
> > )
> > {
> > - ASSERT (FALSE);
> > + if (Offset == NULL || Length == NULL) {
> > + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > + }
> > +
> > return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#54610): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54610
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/70267136/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
