Hello Ray and the MdePkg maintainers,
Does this patch looks fine ? When/if this patch is accepted,
I will send the other patches relying on this present patch,
cf. https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111900
Regards,
Pierre
On 12/1/23 13:26, Pierre Gondois wrote:
Hi Ray,
I followed the way revisions are defined for ACPI tables revisions,
like for the MADT:
EFI_ACPI_x_x_MULTIPLE_APIC_DESCRIPTION_TABLE_REVISION definition
For each ACPI spec. revision, there is a matching MADT revision number.
Sometimes the table has changed and the revision is upgraded, sometimes
not and the revision stays the same.
This also means having a macro definition for each ACPI spec. header
file. I think it should be ok do to the same thing for _PSD/_CPC
revisions,
Regards,
Pierre
On 12/1/23 11:22, Ni, Ray wrote:
--- a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi50.h
+++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi50.h
+#define EFI_ACPI_5_0_AML_PSD_REVISION 0
+#define EFI_ACPI_5_0_AML_CPC_REVISION 1
Do you think it's better to define EFI_ACPI_AML_PSD_REVISION and
EFI_ACPI_AML_CPC_REVISION in Acpi50.h?
So that Acpi51.h doesn't have to redefine a different macro to
the same value?
diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi51.h
b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi51.h
index 01ef544c3a29..19dd7b4f864c 100644
--- a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi51.h
+++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Acpi51.h
+#define EFI_ACPI_5_1_AML_PSD_REVISION 0
+#define EFI_ACPI_5_1_AML_CPC_REVISION 1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#112105): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/112105
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102891569/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
