Attention is currently required from: Angel Pons, Arthur Heymans, Chen, Gang C, Christian Walter, David Hendricks, Felix Held, Jincheng Li, Johnny Lin, Jonathan Zhang, Lean Sheng Tan, Nico Huber, Patrick Rudolph, Paul Menzel, TangYiwei, Tim Chu.
3 comments:
File src/soc/intel/xeon_sp/chip_gen6.c:
Patch Set #53, Line 57: IORESOURCE_SUBTRACTIVE
I agree with you. Updated. This cannot be counted as subtractive decoding. […]
At a second think, I think to set subtractive might be reasonable. The intention is to mark that, the whole legacy IO range (0x0000-0x1000) it is treated in subtractive way and handled behind a subtractive decoding bridge. However, as to whether an address will be responded is decided by whether there is a child device responsible behind that bridge, e.g. 0x60/0x64, 0x62/0x66, 0x3f8, 0x2f8, et al ... However, if we remove the subtractive tag, it means the whole 0x0000-0x1000 will be certainly handled by some devices, we cannot be guaranteed by the SoC itself. Hence I tentatively add the flag back here.
P.S. We might move the 0x0000-0x1000 subtractive range declaration to PCH/IBL codes , which could be handled in a separate patch later.
P.S. For the lpc driver (src/soc/intel/common/block/lpc/lpc.c) IMO it should be also with the subtractive flag for 0x0000-0x1000. However, this could be a separate thread.
File src/soc/intel/xeon_sp/gnr/cpu.c:
Patch Set #53, Line 87: return num_virts * soc_get_num_cpus();
Maybe add a comment, because it might be confusing seeing the value in the log message, but then see […]
Done
Patch Set #53, Line 114: printk(BIOS_ERR, "microcode not found in CBFS!\n");
The log level should match then? The other log message could also be extended to say, that no update […]
Done
To view, visit change 81316. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.