On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:28:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644
> > --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c
> > @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
> >
> > // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size }
> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> This becomes equivalent to 'DistBase != MAX_UINT64' given that a
> UINT64 cannot exceed MAX_UINT64. That is a nonsensical thing to
> assert, so it is better to simply drop it
Random thought:
Could we keep the assert(s) and change the test to MAX_UINTN, to have
a sanity test over whether a 32-bit plaform ends up with a duff
address?
/
Leif
> > // RegProp[2..3] == { GICR base, GICR size }
> > RedistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> > - ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (RedistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> Likewise
>
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicRedistributorsBase, RedistBase);
> > @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor (
> >
> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]);
> > CpuBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[2]);
> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > - ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64);
> > + ASSERT (CpuBase < MAX_UINT64);
> >
>
> Likewise
>
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicDistributorBase, DistBase);
> > PcdSet64 (PcdGicInterruptInterfaceBase, CpuBase);
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
