Hi Hesham,
The idea for keeping it as separate type was to abstract locator field to have
a view similar to that of its definition in the spec (MPAM ACPI 1.0, section
2.2, table 7 - Resource node.)
Something of the lines –
typedef struct {
UINT32 Identifier;
UINT8 RisIndex;
UINT16 Reserved1;
UINT8 LocatorType;
MPAM_LOCATOR Locator;
UINT32 NumDependencies;
} MPAM_MSC_RESOURCE;
Locator field could very well be a struct of UINT64 and UINT32 with just
descriptor 1 and descriptor 2 as the field names (Table 10, 2.3.2)– As you
said, having hardcoded field names won’t work as the descriptors change with
locator type.
///
/// MPAM MSC Locator field
///
typedef struct {
UINT64 Descriptor1;
UINT32 Descriptor2;
} MPAM_LOCATOR;
Let me know your thoughts on the approach.
Regards,
Rohit
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of hesham.almatary
via groups.io
Sent: 24 August 2022 15:39
To: Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Mde Pkg: Support for MPAM ACPI Table
Hello Rohit and Swatisri,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:11 PM, Andrew Fish wrote:
[Rohit ] Shouldn't " Locator " field be 12 bytes in size, possibly a separate
type? (MPAM ACPI 1.0, section 2.2, table 7 - Resource node and section 2.3.2
table 10 - locator descriptor)
I'd just go for UINT64 locator1 and UINT32 locator2 and not necessarily a
separate type. The interpretation of each depends on the the locator type
(e.g., MPAM ACPI Tables 11-15).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#92764): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/92764
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/93069490/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
