On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:14:31AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 30 January 2018 at 11:00, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:32:40AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> Implement support for the SynQuacer eMMC controller. This involves an
> >> implementation of the SD/MMC override protocol to handle a couple of
> >> quirks that would otherwise prevent this IP from being driven by the
> >> generic SDHCI driver.
> >>
> >> Also, add a HII page to the PlatformDxe driver that allows eMMC support
> >> to be enabled, and wire it up for both DeveloperBox and EVB.
> >>
> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> Now that the core support for the SD/MMC override protocol is finally
> >> merged, resubmit this again. I dropped Leif's R-b given that I have
> >> now added DeveloperBox, as well as a HII option to enable eMMC.
> >
> > Couple of minor comments/suggestions below and a question.
> >
> >> Platform/Socionext/DeveloperBox/DeveloperBox.dsc
> >> | 8 +
> >> Platform/Socionext/DeveloperBox/DeveloperBox.fdf
> >> | 7 +
> >> Platform/Socionext/SynQuacerEvalBoard/SynQuacerEvalBoard.dsc
> >> | 8 +
> >> Platform/Socionext/SynQuacerEvalBoard/SynQuacerEvalBoard.fdf
> >> | 7 +
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/DeviceTree/SynQuacer.dtsi
> >> | 1 -
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/DeviceTree/SynQuacerEvalBoard.dts
> >> | 4 -
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/Emmc.c
> >> | 203 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxe.c
> >> | 5 +
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxe.h
> >> | 9 +
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxe.inf
> >> | 4 +
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxeHii.uni
> >> | 6 +
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxeHii.vfr
> >> | 8 +
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Include/Platform/VarStore.h
> >> | 6 +-
> >>
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Library/SynQuacerDtbLoaderLib/SynQuacerDtbLoaderLib.c
> >> | 23 ++-
> >>
> >> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Library/SynQuacerDtbLoaderLib/SynQuacerDtbLoaderLib.inf
> >> | 1 +
> >> 15 files changed, 287 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >
> >> +/**
> >> +
> >> + Override function for SDHCI capability bits
> >> +
> >> + @param[in] PassThru A pointer to the
> >> + EFI_SD_MMC_PASS_THRU_PROTOCOL
> >> instance.
> >> + @param[in] ControllerHandle The EFI_HANDLE of the controller.
> >> + @param[in] Slot The 0 based slot index.
> >> + @param[in,out] SdMmcHcSlotCapability The SDHCI capability structure.
> >> +
> >> + @retval EFI_SUCCESS The override function completed
> >> successfully.
> >> + @retval EFI_NOT_FOUND The specified controller or slot does not
> >> exist.
> >> + @retval EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER SdMmcHcSlotCapability is NULL
> >> +
> >> +**/
> >> +STATIC
> >> +EFI_STATUS
> >> +EFIAPI
> >> +SynQuacerSdMmcCapability (
> >> + IN EFI_HANDLE ControllerHandle,
> >> + IN UINT8 Slot,
> >> + IN OUT VOID *SdMmcHcSlotCapability
> >> + )
> >> +{
> >> + UINT64 Capability;
> >> +
> >> + if (ControllerHandle != mSdMmcControllerHandle || Slot != 0) {
> >
> > This test pattern repeats below, does it suggest a macro?
> >
>
> I don't see how that would clear things up tbh, and the pattern occurs
> only twice
>
> #define IS_OUR_QUIRKY_SDMMC_CONTROLLER(Handle, Slot) \
> ((Handle) == mSdMmcControllerHandle && (Slot) == 0)
>
> if (!IS_OUR_QUIRKY_SDMMC_CONTROLLER(ControllerHandle, Slot) {
> return EFI_SUCCESS;
> }
>
> I can change it if you want, or add a comment if the condition is not
> self-explanatory enough.
It's just an awful lot of logical operations on a single line.
'ControllerHandle != mSdMmcControllerHandle' is reasonably easy to
figure out, but '|| Slot != 0' looks a bit random there.
A comment would be sufficient.
Another option would be to reduce the number of logical operations by
two by doing
if (ControllerHandle == mSdMmcControllerHandle && Slot == 0) {
and doing the body inside the if-statement.
That's a bit uglier in the next function, but I would expect it
follows the paradigm of "handle most likely case first"?
> >> diff --git
> >> a/Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxeHii.uni
> >> b/Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxeHii.uni
> >> index b274d12ed2c6..2eca8bbba8c3 100644
> >> --- a/Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxeHii.uni
> >> +++ b/Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/Drivers/PlatformDxe/PlatformDxeHii.uni
> >> @@ -27,3 +27,9 @@
> >>
> >> #string STR_PCIE_MAX_SPEED_UNLIMITED #language en-US "Unlimited"
> >> #string STR_PCIE_MAX_SPEED_GEN1 #language en-US "Gen1 (2.5 GT/s)"
> >> +
> >> +#string STR_EMMC_ENABLE_PROMPT #language en-US "Enable on-board
> >> eMMC"
> >> +#string STR_EMMC_ENABLE_HELP #language en-US "Enable the
> >> on-board eMMC for booting and for use by the OS."
> >> +
> >> +#string STR_EMMC_DISABLED #language en-US "Disabled"
> >> +#string STR_EMMC_ENABLED #language en-US "Enabled"
> >
> > Perhaps a random question, but ...
> > Why am I seeing this in cleartext in the patch? Is it really a unicode file?
>
> Given that we support UTF-8 in .uni files these days, and the fact
> that all characters used are in the 7-bit ASCII range, it doesn't
> really make a difference, I guess.
Fair enough.
/
Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
