> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:21 AM
> To: Duran, Leo <leo.du...@amd.com>; Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com>;
> devel@edk2.groups.io; Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com>; Fu, Siyuan
> <siyuan...@intel.com>
> Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/2] UefiCpuPkg/Library: Fix bug in
> MpInitLib
>
> On 02/26/20 16:46, Duran, Leo wrote:
> > BTW,
> >
> > I also considered adding a flag to CPU_MP_DATA to make the usage of
> PlatformId a bit more explicit.
> > E.g., something like CpuMpData-
> >CpuData[ProcessorNumber].IsValidPlatformId... So the init code would look
> like this:
> >
> > //
> > // NOTE: PlatformId is not relevant on AMD platforms.
> > //
> > if (StandardSignatureIsAuthenticAMD ()) {
> > CpuMpData->CpuData[ProcessorNumber].IsValidPlatformId = FALSE;
> > else {
> > PlatformIdMsr.Uint64 = AsmReadMsr64 (MSR_IA32_PLATFORM_ID);
> > CpuMpData->CpuData[ProcessorNumber].PlatformId =
> (UINT8)PlatformIdMsr.Bits.PlatformId;
> > CpuMpData->CpuData[ProcessorNumber].IsValidPlatformId = TRUE;
> > }
> >
> > This way "IsValidPlatformId" could be checked prior to using "PlatformId".
> > Anyway, that seemed a bit overkill, so I opted against it... thoughts?
>
> I think a global flag is justified; in the above approach, "IsValidPlatformId"
> would not vary across "ProcessorNumber", so it does look like useless
> generality.
[Duran, Leo]
Great point, Laszlo.
Indeed, global makes senses in the case!
I can prepare a v2-set to incorporate that.
Thanks,
Leo
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#54905): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54905
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/71541516/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
