Hi Christian,
I was just about to send a patch for supporting iTCO v2. I will wait until
you push your changes before rebasing my work on this refact. Until then I
got some interrogations/questions.
>+#define PMBASE_ADDRMASK 0x0000ff80
>+#define PMCBASE_ADDRMASK 0xfffffe00
>
>-#define PMBASE_REG 0x40
>-# define PMBASE_ADDRMASK 0xff00
Was this intentional? Changing PMBASE_ADDRMASK from 0xff00 to 0x0000ff80?
>+typedef struct {
> >+ CHAR16 name[16];
> >+ UINT32 pci_id;
> >+ UINT32 pmbase;
> >+ UINT32 pmcbasereg;
> >+ UINT32 pmcreg;
> >+ UINT32 smireg;
> >+} iTCO_info;
>
This is just a thought here. The iTCO v2 vs v3 uses differents registers.
- PMC_NO_REBOOT : GCS_NO_REBOOT
- PMCBASE_ADDRMASK : RCBABASE_ADDRMASK
- PMCBASE_REG : RCBABASE_REG
- PMC_REG : GCS_REG
For the reboot flag, I would suggest that we add a field no_reboo_flag. For
the other three, I am not sure what would be the best between choosing a
generic term that would fit both iTCO version or adding the iTCO v2
register names.
> >- value |= timeout & 0x3ff;
> >- status = uefi_call_wrapper(pci_io->Io.Write, 6, pci_io,
> >- EfiPciIoWidthUint16,
> >- EFI_PCI_IO_PASS_THROUGH_BAR,
> >- tcobase + TCO_TMR_REG, 1, &value);
> >+ value |= ((timeout * 10) / 6) & 0x3ff;
>
This should be value |= timeout & 0x3ff;
Cheers,
Mathieu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EFI
Boot Guard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/efibootguard-dev/a5db91b1-656b-4486-9223-10bbd122f583%40googlegroups.com.
