Hi Pierre, Thank you for these patches.
On 03/07/2024, 10:54, "Pierre Gondois" <pierre.gond...@arm.com <mailto:pierre.gond...@arm.com>> wrote: Some CM objects fields are wider than the targeted field in ACPI tables. Some assignments are also subject to data loss and trigger the following warnings: - '<': signed/unsigned mismatch - '=': conversion from 'UINTxx' to 'UINTyy', possible loss of data with xx > yy. Add checks/cast to remove the warnings. Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gond...@arm.com <mailto:pierre.gond...@arm.com>> --- .../Acpi/Common/AcpiPcctLib/PcctGenerator.c | 15 +++++++++++---- .../SsdtCpuTopologyGenerator.c | 6 ++++-- .../Common/AcpiSsdtPcieLib/SsdtPcieGenerator.c | 15 ++++++++++----- 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/DynamicTablesPkg/Library/Acpi/Common/AcpiPcctLib/PcctGenerator.c b/DynamicTablesPkg/Library/Acpi/Common/AcpiPcctLib/PcctGenerator.c index 205c44405785..061e12bf1b3d 100644 --- a/DynamicTablesPkg/Library/Acpi/Common/AcpiPcctLib/PcctGenerator.c +++ b/DynamicTablesPkg/Library/Acpi/Common/AcpiPcctLib/PcctGenerator.c @@ -379,10 +379,12 @@ AddSubspaceStructType1 ( Doorbell = &GenericPccCmObj->DoorbellReg; ChannelTiming = &GenericPccCmObj->ChannelTiming; + ASSERT ((PccCmObj->PlatIrq.Flags >> 8) == 0); [SAMI] I think we can change this to ASSERT ((PccCmObj->PlatIrq.Flags & ~MAX_UINT8) == 0); That way we can also avoid magic numbers. I think similar changes are required elsewhere in this patch. If you agree, I will make the changes before merging. Otherwise, this series looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Sami Mujawar <sami.muja...@arm.com> Regards, Sami Mujawar -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#119781): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/119781 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/107016603/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
