Hi Igor,
On 01/15/19 16:40, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> introduce UEFI specific counterpart to acpi_find_rsdp_address()
> that will help to find RSDP address when [OA]VMF is used as
> firmware. It requires a [OA]VMF built with PcdAcpiTestSupport=TRUE,
> to locate RSDP address within 1Mb aligned ACPI test structure, tagged
> with GUID AB87A6B1-2034-BDA0-71BD-375007757785
>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> ---
> tests/acpi-utils.h | 1 +
> tests/acpi-utils.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
I'm not promising to review all of this patch set (Phil, feel free to
chime in); I'll just make some quick comments below:
> diff --git a/tests/acpi-utils.h b/tests/acpi-utils.h
> index ef388bb..3b11f47 100644
> --- a/tests/acpi-utils.h
> +++ b/tests/acpi-utils.h
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ typedef struct {
>
> uint8_t acpi_calc_checksum(const uint8_t *data, int len);
> uint32_t acpi_find_rsdp_address(QTestState *qts);
> +uint64_t uefi_find_rsdp_addr(QTestState *qts, uint64_t start, uint64_t size);
I think it would make sense to keep the "acpi_find_rsdp_address" prefix
for the new function name; maybe append "_uefi"? Because now "acpi" is
replaced with "uefi , plus "address" is truncated to "addr"; those don't
seem overly logical.
Anyway, up to you.
> uint64_t acpi_get_xsdt_address(uint8_t *rsdp_table);
> void acpi_parse_rsdp_table(QTestState *qts, uint32_t addr, uint8_t
> *rsdp_table);
> void acpi_fetch_table(QTestState *qts, uint8_t **aml, uint32_t *aml_len,
> diff --git a/tests/acpi-utils.c b/tests/acpi-utils.c
> index cc33b46..b9ff9df 100644
> --- a/tests/acpi-utils.c
> +++ b/tests/acpi-utils.c
> @@ -111,3 +111,46 @@ void acpi_fetch_table(QTestState *qts, uint8_t **aml,
> uint32_t *aml_len,
> g_assert(!acpi_calc_checksum(*aml, *aml_len));
> }
> }
> +
> +#define GUID_SIZE 16
> +static uint8_t AcpiTestSupportGuid[GUID_SIZE] =
> + { 0xb1, 0xa6, 0x87, 0xab,
> + 0x34, 0x20,
> + 0xa0, 0xbd,
> + 0x71, 0xbd, 0x37, 0x50, 0x07, 0x75, 0x77, 0x85 };
I think this is generally good. QEMU has some utilities/helpers for
working with UUIDs; however, for the test infrastructure, I think this
should be good enough.
Suggestion: make the GUID "const" as well.
> +
> +typedef struct {
> + uint8_t signature_guid[16];
s/16/GUID_SIZE/?
> + uint64_t rsdp10;
> + uint64_t rsdp20;
> +} __attribute__((packed)) UefiTestSupport;
> +
> +/* Wait at most 600 seconds (test is slow with TCI and --enable-debug) */
Do you specifically mean "Tiny Code Interpreter" here?
> +#define TEST_DELAY (1 * G_USEC_PER_SEC / 10)
> +#define TEST_CYCLES MAX((600 * G_USEC_PER_SEC / TEST_DELAY), 1)
> +#define MB 0x100000ULL
> +uint64_t uefi_find_rsdp_addr(QTestState *qts, uint64_t start, uint64_t size)
> +{
> + int i, j;
> + uint8_t data[GUID_SIZE];
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < TEST_CYCLES; ++i) {
> + for (j = 0; j < size / MB; j++) {
> + /* look for GUID at every 1Mb block */
> + uint64_t addr = start + j * MB;
> +
> + qtest_memread(qts, addr, data, sizeof(data));
> + if (!memcmp(AcpiTestSupportGuid, data, sizeof(data))) {
> + UefiTestSupport ret;
> +
> + qtest_memread(qts, addr, &ret, sizeof(ret));
> + ret.rsdp10 = le64_to_cpu(ret.rsdp10);
> + ret.rsdp20 = le64_to_cpu(ret.rsdp20);
> + return ret.rsdp20 ? ret.rsdp20 : ret.rsdp10;
> + }
> + }
> + g_usleep(TEST_DELAY);
> + }
> + g_assert_not_reached();
> + return 0;
> +}
>
Apart from my hair-splitting, it looks good. If you update
16-->GUID_SIZE, then you can add
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
Thanks,
Laszlo
