[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:29:01 -0500 |
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:32:45AM -0600, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Thanks for examining this! Inline response below.
> eric
>
> On 1/25/22 06:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 04:23:49PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> > >
> > > > This builds the ACPI ERST table to inform OSPM how to communicate
> > > > with the acpi-erst device.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@oracle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/acpi/erst.c | 188
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 188 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/hw/acpi/erst.c b/hw/acpi/erst.c
> > > > index fe9ba51..b0c7539 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/acpi/erst.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/acpi/erst.c
> > > > @@ -59,6 +59,27 @@
> > > > #define STATUS_RECORD_STORE_EMPTY 0x04
> > > > #define STATUS_RECORD_NOT_FOUND 0x05
> > > >
> > > > +/* ACPI 4.0: Table 17-19 Serialization Instructions */
> > > > +#define INST_READ_REGISTER 0x00
> > > > +#define INST_READ_REGISTER_VALUE 0x01
> > > > +#define INST_WRITE_REGISTER 0x02
> > > > +#define INST_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE 0x03
> > > > +#define INST_NOOP 0x04
> > > > +#define INST_LOAD_VAR1 0x05
> > > > +#define INST_LOAD_VAR2 0x06
> > > > +#define INST_STORE_VAR1 0x07
> > > > +#define INST_ADD 0x08
> > > > +#define INST_SUBTRACT 0x09
> > > > +#define INST_ADD_VALUE 0x0A
> > > > +#define INST_SUBTRACT_VALUE 0x0B
> > > > +#define INST_STALL 0x0C
> > > > +#define INST_STALL_WHILE_TRUE 0x0D
> > > > +#define INST_SKIP_NEXT_INSTRUCTION_IF_TRUE 0x0E
> > > > +#define INST_GOTO 0x0F
> > > > +#define INST_SET_SRC_ADDRESS_BASE 0x10
> > > > +#define INST_SET_DST_ADDRESS_BASE 0x11
> > > > +#define INST_MOVE_DATA 0x12
> > > > +
> > > > /* UEFI 2.1: Appendix N Common Platform Error Record */
> > > > #define UEFI_CPER_RECORD_MIN_SIZE 128U
> > > > #define UEFI_CPER_RECORD_LENGTH_OFFSET 20U
> > > > @@ -172,6 +193,173 @@ typedef struct {
> > > >
> > > > /*******************************************************************/
> > > > /*******************************************************************/
> > > > +
> > > > +/* ACPI 4.0: 17.4.1.2 Serialization Instruction Entries */
> > > > +static void build_serialization_instruction_entry(GArray *table_data,
> > > > + uint8_t serialization_action,
> > > > + uint8_t instruction,
> > > > + uint8_t flags,
> > > > + uint8_t register_bit_width,
> > > > + uint64_t register_address,
> > > > + uint64_t value)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* ACPI 4.0: Table 17-18 Serialization Instruction Entry */
> > > > + struct AcpiGenericAddress gas;
> > > > + uint64_t mask;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Serialization Action */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, serialization_action, 1);
> > > > + /* Instruction */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, instruction , 1);
> > > > + /* Flags */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, flags , 1);
> > > > + /* Reserved */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, 0 , 1);
> > > > + /* Register Region */
> > > > + gas.space_id = AML_SYSTEM_MEMORY;
> > > > + gas.bit_width = register_bit_width;
> > > > + gas.bit_offset = 0;
> > > > + gas.access_width = ctz32(register_bit_width) - 2;
> > > > + gas.address = register_address;
> > > > + build_append_gas_from_struct(table_data, &gas);
> > > > + /* Value */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, value , 8);
> > > > + /* Mask */
> > > > + mask = (1ULL << (register_bit_width - 1) << 1) - 1;
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, mask , 8);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/* ACPI 4.0: 17.4.1 Serialization Action Table */
> > > > +void build_erst(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, Object
> > > > *erst_dev,
> > > > + const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id)
> > > > +{
> > > > + GArray *table_instruction_data;
> > > > + unsigned action;
> > > > + pcibus_t bar0 = pci_get_bar_addr(PCI_DEVICE(erst_dev), 0);
> > > > + AcpiTable table = { .sig = "ERST", .rev = 1, .oem_id = oem_id,
> > > > + .oem_table_id = oem_table_id };
> > > > +
> > > > + trace_acpi_erst_pci_bar_0(bar0);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Serialization Action Table
> > > > + * The serialization action table must be generated first
> > > > + * so that its size can be known in order to populate the
> > > > + * Instruction Entry Count field.
> > > > + */
> > > > + table_instruction_data = g_array_new(FALSE, FALSE, sizeof(char));
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Macros for use with construction of the action instructions
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define BUILD_READ_REGISTER(width_in_bits, reg) \
> > > > + build_serialization_instruction_entry(table_instruction_data, \
> > > > + action, INST_READ_REGISTER, 0, width_in_bits, \
> > > > + bar0 + reg, 0)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define BUILD_READ_REGISTER_VALUE(width_in_bits, reg, value) \
> > > > + build_serialization_instruction_entry(table_instruction_data, \
> > > > + action, INST_READ_REGISTER_VALUE, 0, width_in_bits, \
> > > > + bar0 + reg, value)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER(width_in_bits, reg, value) \
> > > > + build_serialization_instruction_entry(table_instruction_data, \
> > > > + action, INST_WRITE_REGISTER, 0, width_in_bits, \
> > > > + bar0 + reg, value)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(width_in_bits, reg, value) \
> > > > + build_serialization_instruction_entry(table_instruction_data, \
> > > > + action, INST_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE, 0, width_in_bits, \
> > > > + bar0 + reg, value)
> >
> >
> > I think these macros which in a hidden way use the bar0 variable really
> > should be replaced with inline functions, improving type safety.
>
> I had not stated this previously, but my choice for using macros over
> functions
> was the use three local variables: table_instruction_data, bar0, and action.
Oh, didn't notice the others too.
> Any function would then automatically require these three as parameters, or
> I'm
> stuffing these temporary items into local globals (to avoid passing as
> parameters).
Please, no globals.
> As for the type safety of bar0, I don't quite understand what I should do
> differently
> (regardless of macro vs function). Ultimately these call
> build_serialization_instruction_entry()
> with the 'uint64_t register address' accepting the bar0+offset value. Bar0 is
> pcibar_t
> and the compiler happily implicitly typecasts to uint64_t.
The other way could warn though - maybe we should build with
-Wconversion. That's going to require quite a bit of work though.
> What would an acceptable function prototype look like?
Well, that's a limitation of C. We can pass a
structure if you really need to save some code lines but that's really
all we can do.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Serialization Instruction Entries */
> > > > + action = ACTION_BEGIN_WRITE_OPERATION;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_BEGIN_READ_OPERATION;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_BEGIN_CLEAR_OPERATION;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_END_OPERATION;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_SET_RECORD_OFFSET;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER(32, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET, 0);
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_EXECUTE_OPERATION;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET,
> > > > + ERST_EXECUTE_OPERATION_MAGIC);
> > >
> > > except here, on all cases we have
> > > BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > >
> > > We should treat the above as special case and simplify the rest of the
> > > calls (eliminate repeated common arguments).
> > >
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_CHECK_BUSY_STATUS;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET, 0x01);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_GET_COMMAND_STATUS;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER(32, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_GET_RECORD_IDENTIFIER;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER(64, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_SET_RECORD_IDENTIFIER;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER(64, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET, 0);
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > >
> > > This one seems reverted. Should this be
> > > BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER(64, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET, 0);
> > >
> > > like others?
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_GET_RECORD_COUNT;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER(32, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_BEGIN_DUMMY_WRITE_OPERATION;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_GET_ERROR_LOG_ADDRESS_RANGE;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER(64, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_GET_ERROR_LOG_ADDRESS_LENGTH;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER(64, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_GET_ERROR_LOG_ADDRESS_RANGE_ATTRIBUTES;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER(32, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > > > + action = ACTION_GET_EXECUTE_OPERATION_TIMINGS;
> > > > + BUILD_WRITE_REGISTER_VALUE(32, ERST_ACTION_OFFSET, action);
> > > > + BUILD_READ_REGISTER(64, ERST_VALUE_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > BUILD_READ_REGISTER() is always called with ERST_VALUE_OFFSET as second
> > > argument. WE should eliminate this repeated passing of same argument.
> > >
> > >
> > > > + /* Serialization Header */
> > > > + acpi_table_begin(&table, table_data);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Serialization Header Size */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, 48, 4);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Reserved */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, 0, 4);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Instruction Entry Count
> > > > + * Each instruction entry is 32 bytes
> > > > + */
> > > > + g_assert((table_instruction_data->len) % 32 == 0);
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data,
> > > > + (table_instruction_data->len / 32), 4);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Serialization Instruction Entries */
> > > > + g_array_append_vals(table_data, table_instruction_data->data,
> > > > + table_instruction_data->len);
> > > > + g_array_free(table_instruction_data, TRUE);
> > > > +
> > > > + acpi_table_end(linker, &table);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/*******************************************************************/
> > > > +/*******************************************************************/
> > > > static uint8_t *get_nvram_ptr_by_index(ERSTDeviceState *s, unsigned
> > > > index)
> > > > {
> > > > uint8_t *rc = NULL;
> > > > --
> > > > 1.8.3.1
> > > >
> > > >
> >
- [PATCH v13 08/10] ACPI ERST: qtest for ERST, (continued)
- [PATCH v13 08/10] ACPI ERST: qtest for ERST, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/24
- [PATCH v13 04/10] ACPI ERST: header file for ERST, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/24
- [PATCH v13 07/10] ACPI ERST: create ACPI ERST table for pc/x86 machines, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/24
- [PATCH v13 09/10] ACPI ERST: bios-tables-test testcase, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/24
- [PATCH v13 05/10] ACPI ERST: support for ACPI ERST feature, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/24
- [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/24
- Re: [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/25
- Re: [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2022/01/25
- Re: [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table, Ani Sinha, 2022/01/26
- Re: [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/26
- Re: [PATCH v13 06/10] ACPI ERST: build the ACPI ERST table, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2022/01/26
[PATCH v13 10/10] ACPI ERST: step 6 of bios-tables-test.c, Eric DeVolder, 2022/01/24