On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 21:06:16 +0100
Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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?
it's typo, I've meant TCG. I'll fix it.
> > +#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
Thanks,
I'll apply all of your suggestions for v2 respin
>
> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks,
> Laszlo
>
