Attention is currently required from: Arthur Heymans, Fred Reitberger, Jason Glenesk, Matt DeVillier, Nico Huber, Raul Rangel.
Felix Held has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74843?usp=email )
Change subject: soc/amd/common/data_fabric/domain: provide amd_pci_domain_fill_ssdt ......................................................................
Patch Set 12:
(3 comments)
File src/soc/amd/common/block/data_fabric/domain.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74843/comment/259f9e8c_1181b70f : PS11, Line 169: if (base > PCI_IO_CONFIG_LAST_PORT || limit < PCI_IO_CONFIG_INDEX) {
figured out why this is done: when not splitting this, the 16 bit length field of the acpi resource […]
added both a comment and CB:75613 to print a warning when a broken acpi io port producer resource gets generated
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74843/comment/75861298_45603b81 : PS11, Line 176: /*spit IO range to not cover PCI config IO ports*/
just fixed that in my local tree; will mark this as resolved once i've pushed the new version
ended up removing that part of the code
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74843/comment/74eb48be_14acb82a : PS11, Line 168: : if (base > PCI_IO_CONFIG_LAST_PORT || limit < PCI_IO_CONFIG_INDEX) { : /* no overlap with PCI config IO ports */ : write_ssdt_domain_io_range_helper(base, limit); : } else {/* overlap with PCI config IO ports */ : if (base == PCI_IO_CONFIG_INDEX && limit == PCI_IO_CONFIG_LAST_PORT) : return; /* IO range exactly covers the PCI config IO ports */ : if (base < PCI_IO_CONFIG_INDEX && limit > PCI_IO_CONFIG_LAST_PORT) { : /*spit IO range to not cover PCI config IO ports*/ : write_ssdt_domain_io_range_helper(base, PCI_IO_CONFIG_INDEX - 1); : write_ssdt_domain_io_range_helper(PCI_IO_CONFIG_LAST_PORT + 1, limit); : } else if (limit <= PCI_IO_CONFIG_LAST_PORT) { : write_ssdt_domain_io_range_helper(base, PCI_IO_CONFIG_INDEX - 1); : } else { /* base >= PCI_IO_CONFIG_INDEX */ : write_ssdt_domain_io_range_helper(PCI_IO_CONFIG_LAST_PORT + 1, limit); : } : }
will look into this to make sure that it covers all cases correctly, but from a quick look it looks […]
integrated that into the patch. do you want a suggested-by line for this? wasn't sure about this