Hi Ray,
Below is my opinions for your 2 questions:
1. Can we rename this function name to "RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid"?
[Bell]: In content of RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c, there is a function named
IsBitMaskMatchCheck(), it's my function's base, they have similar function - a
small valid/invalid check,
So I think it is better to keep them align.
2. Can we just say "CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE" is the MAX feature we support?
[Bell]: Discussed with Eric before, we should not define this as a MAX feature
for future extension purpose.
Best Regards,
Bell Song
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ni, Ruiyu
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 5:40 PM
> To: Song, BinX <binx.s...@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: ler...@redhat.com; Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature
> parameter
>
> On 12/11/2017 4:16 PM, Song, BinX wrote:
> > Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
> >
> > Cc: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
> > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> > Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.s...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 4 ++++
> > .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 28
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> > index 9331e49..54244cd 100644
> > --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> > +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> > @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@
> > #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10)
> > #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11)
> > +//
> > +// When you add new CPU features, please also replace the minor CPU
> feature
> > +// with the max CPU feature in the IsFeatureValidCheck() function.
> > +//
> > #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12)
> >
> > #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27
> > #define CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL BIT28
> > diff --git
> a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> > index dd6a82b..f75d900 100644
> > ---
> a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> > +++
> b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> > @@ -81,6 +81,33 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > + Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
> > +
> > + @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature
> > +
> > + @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid.
> > + @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
> > +**/
> > +BOOLEAN
> > +IsFeatureValidCheck (
> Can we rename this function name to
> "RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid"?
>
>
> > + IN UINT32 Feature
> > + )
> > +{
> > + UINT32 Data;
> > +
> > + Data = Feature;
> > + Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER |
> CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
> > + //
> > + // Please replace CPU feature below with the MAX one if have.
> Can we just say "CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE" is the MAX feature we
> support?
>
>
> > + //
> > + if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
> > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
> > + return FALSE;
> > + }
> > + return TRUE;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask
> buffer.
> >
> > @param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
> > @@ -444,6 +471,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
> >
> > VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
> > Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
> > + ASSERT (IsFeatureValidCheck(Feature));
> > while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
> > ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
> > != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Ray
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
