MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2007
The following two PCI Capability Structure registers are updated as per
the PCI Base Specification Revision 4:-
(1) The PCI Device capability register 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2)
needs to be upgraded for the PCI features like -
LN system CLS (LnSystemCLS),
10b Tag completer/requester register fields
(TenBitTagCompleterSupported, TenBitTagRequesterSupported),
Emergency power reduction support and initialization requirement
(EmergencyPowerReductionSupported,
EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired),
and FRS support (FrsSupported ).
(2) The PCI Device Control register 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL2) needs
to be upgraded for the -
Emergency power reduction request enabling
(EmergencyPowerReductionRequest), and also the 10b Extended Tag
enabling (TenBitTagRequesterEnable).
The following two are defined as per the PCI Express Base Specification
Revision 2.1:-
(1) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Maximum Payload Sizes
and Maximum Read Request Sizes defined
(2) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Completion Timeout
value.
Signed-off-by: Ashraf Javeed <ashraf.javeed@intel.com>
Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
---
MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
index d4003de74c..e652e77a1e 100644
--- a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
+++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
@@ -91,6 +91,24 @@ typedef union {
UINT16 Uint16;
} PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL;
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_128B 0
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_256B 1
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_512B 2
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_1024B 3
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_2048B 4
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_4096B 5
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD1 6
+#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD2 7
+
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_128B 0
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_256B 1
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_512B 2
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_1024B 3
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_2048B 4
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_4096B 5
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD1 6
+#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD2 7
+
typedef union {
struct {
UINT16 CorrectableError : 1;
@@ -250,16 +268,30 @@ typedef union {
UINT32 NoRoEnabledPrPrPassing : 1;
UINT32 LtrMechanism : 1;
UINT32 TphCompleter : 2;
- UINT32 Reserved : 4;
+ UINT32 LnSystemCLS : 2;
+ UINT32 TenBitTagCompleterSupported : 1;
+ UINT32 TenBitTagRequesterSupported : 1;
UINT32 Obff : 2;
UINT32 ExtendedFmtField : 1;
UINT32 EndEndTlpPrefix : 1;
UINT32 MaxEndEndTlpPrefixes : 2;
- UINT32 Reserved2 : 8;
+ UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionSupported : 2;
+ UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired : 1;
+ UINT32 Reserved : 4;
+ UINT32 FrsSupported : 1;
} Bits;
UINT32 Uint32;
} PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2;
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_NOT_SUPPORTED 0
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_SUPPORTED 1
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_SUPPORTED 2
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_SUPPORTED 3
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_SUPPORTED 6
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_SUPPORTED 7
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_D_SUPPORTED 14
+#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_D_SUPPORTED 15
+
#define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_MESSAGE BIT0
#define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_WAKE BIT1
@@ -273,7 +305,8 @@ typedef union {
UINT16 IdoRequest : 1;
UINT16 IdoCompletion : 1;
UINT16 LtrMechanism : 2;
- UINT16 Reserved : 2;
+ UINT16 EmergencyPowerReductionRequest : 1;
+ UINT16 TenBitTagRequesterEnable : 1;
UINT16 Obff : 2;
UINT16 EndEndTlpPrefixBlocking : 1;
} Bits;
--
2.21.0.windows.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#44414): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/44414
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32555963/1787277
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi Javeed,
On 07/25/19 20:23, Javeed, Ashraf wrote:
> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2007
> The following two PCI Capability Structure registers are updated as per
> the PCI Base Specification Revision 4:-
> (1) The PCI Device capability register 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2)
> needs to be upgraded for the PCI features like -
> LN system CLS (LnSystemCLS),
> 10b Tag completer/requester register fields
> (TenBitTagCompleterSupported, TenBitTagRequesterSupported),
> Emergency power reduction support and initialization requirement
> (EmergencyPowerReductionSupported,
> EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired),
> and FRS support (FrsSupported ).
>
> (2) The PCI Device Control register 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL2) needs
> to be upgraded for the -
> Emergency power reduction request enabling
> (EmergencyPowerReductionRequest), and also the 10b Extended Tag
> enabling (TenBitTagRequesterEnable).
>
> The following two are defined as per the PCI Express Base Specification
> Revision 2.1:-
> (1) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Maximum Payload Sizes
> and Maximum Read Request Sizes defined
>
> (2) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Completion Timeout
> value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ashraf Javeed <ashraf.javeed@intel.com>
> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
> Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> ---
> MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> index d4003de74c..e652e77a1e 100644
> --- a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> +++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> @@ -91,6 +91,24 @@ typedef union {
> UINT16 Uint16;
> } PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL;
>
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_128B 0
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_256B 1
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_512B 2
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_1024B 3
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_2048B 4
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_4096B 5
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD1 6
> +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD2 7
> +
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_128B 0
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_256B 1
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_512B 2
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_1024B 3
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_2048B 4
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_4096B 5
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD1 6
> +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD2 7
> +
> typedef union {
> struct {
> UINT16 CorrectableError : 1;
> @@ -250,16 +268,30 @@ typedef union {
> UINT32 NoRoEnabledPrPrPassing : 1;
> UINT32 LtrMechanism : 1;
> UINT32 TphCompleter : 2;
> - UINT32 Reserved : 4;
> + UINT32 LnSystemCLS : 2;
> + UINT32 TenBitTagCompleterSupported : 1;
> + UINT32 TenBitTagRequesterSupported : 1;
> UINT32 Obff : 2;
> UINT32 ExtendedFmtField : 1;
> UINT32 EndEndTlpPrefix : 1;
> UINT32 MaxEndEndTlpPrefixes : 2;
> - UINT32 Reserved2 : 8;
> + UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionSupported : 2;
> + UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired : 1;
> + UINT32 Reserved : 4;
> + UINT32 FrsSupported : 1;
This is risky practice. There could be code "out there" that already
uses the Reserved field in place of the named LnSystemCLS,
TenBitTagCompleterSupported, TenBitTagRequesterSupported fields.
Of course, my point is *not* that we should keep the old Reserved field
-- if code uses a field called Reserved, it should be prepared for build
breakages, when those fields are finally given sensible names.
Instead, what is risky is reintroducing the Reserved field with the same
name, but different meaning. It could silently break code that refers to
Reserved.
Thus, in such cases, it's better to locate the highest-numbered Reserved
field in the structure, add one to that number, and introduce
Reserved(N+1). This is guaranteed to trigger a compilation failure in
code that refers to Reserved right now.
In this particular case (= in structure
PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2), the new field would be "Reserved3".
The patch should remove Reserved and Reserved2, and add Reserved3.
Thanks
Laszlo
> } Bits;
> UINT32 Uint32;
> } PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2;
>
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_NOT_SUPPORTED 0
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_SUPPORTED 1
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_SUPPORTED 2
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_SUPPORTED 3
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_SUPPORTED 6
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_SUPPORTED 7
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_D_SUPPORTED 14
> +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_D_SUPPORTED 15
> +
> #define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_MESSAGE BIT0
> #define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_WAKE BIT1
>
> @@ -273,7 +305,8 @@ typedef union {
> UINT16 IdoRequest : 1;
> UINT16 IdoCompletion : 1;
> UINT16 LtrMechanism : 2;
> - UINT16 Reserved : 2;
> + UINT16 EmergencyPowerReductionRequest : 1;
> + UINT16 TenBitTagRequesterEnable : 1;
> UINT16 Obff : 2;
> UINT16 EndEndTlpPrefixBlocking : 1;
> } Bits;
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#44417): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/44417
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32555963/1787277
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello Ashraf, On 07/25/19 23:20, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi Javeed, [...] Sorry, I didn't mean to address you by surname. (I find that the comma notation in names is totally useless. Some people put surname first, some others given name -- same confusion as without the comma.) I should have looked at your email address -- I know the Intel scheme puts the given name first. Thanks, Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#44418): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/44418 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32555963/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi Laszlo, I understand and I have no issues with it. Regards Ashraf > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 3:23 AM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Javeed, Ashraf <ashraf.javeed@intel.com> > Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Gao, Liming > <liming.gao@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A > <hao.a.wu@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdePkg/PciExpress21.h: Fix the PCIe industry > standard registers > > Hello Ashraf, > > On 07/25/19 23:20, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Hi Javeed, > > [...] > > Sorry, I didn't mean to address you by surname. > > (I find that the comma notation in names is totally useless. Some people put > surname first, some others given name -- same confusion as without the > comma.) > > I should have looked at your email address -- I know the Intel scheme puts the > given name first. > > Thanks, > Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#44427): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/44427 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32555963/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi Laszlo,
Good catch!
I shall provide patch V2 with the suggested fix.
Everyone,
Any other input with this regard?
Thanks
Ashraf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 2:51 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Javeed, Ashraf <ashraf.javeed@intel.com>
> Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Gao, Liming
> <liming.gao@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A
> <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdePkg/PciExpress21.h: Fix the PCIe industry
> standard registers
>
> Hi Javeed,
>
> On 07/25/19 20:23, Javeed, Ashraf wrote:
> > BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2007
> > The following two PCI Capability Structure registers are updated as
> > per the PCI Base Specification Revision 4:-
> > (1) The PCI Device capability register 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2)
> > needs to be upgraded for the PCI features like -
> > LN system CLS (LnSystemCLS),
> > 10b Tag completer/requester register fields
> > (TenBitTagCompleterSupported, TenBitTagRequesterSupported),
> > Emergency power reduction support and initialization requirement
> > (EmergencyPowerReductionSupported,
> > EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired),
> > and FRS support (FrsSupported ).
> >
> > (2) The PCI Device Control register 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL2)
> needs
> > to be upgraded for the -
> > Emergency power reduction request enabling
> > (EmergencyPowerReductionRequest), and also the 10b Extended Tag
> > enabling (TenBitTagRequesterEnable).
> >
> > The following two are defined as per the PCI Express Base
> > Specification Revision 2.1:-
> > (1) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Maximum Payload Sizes
> > and Maximum Read Request Sizes defined
> >
> > (2) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Completion Timeout
> > value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ashraf Javeed <ashraf.javeed@intel.com>
> > Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> > Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> > ---
> > MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h | 39
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > index d4003de74c..e652e77a1e 100644
> > --- a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > +++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > @@ -91,6 +91,24 @@ typedef union {
> > UINT16 Uint16;
> > } PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL;
> >
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_128B 0
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_256B 1
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_512B 2
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_1024B 3 #define
> > +PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_2048B 4 #define
> PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_4096B 5
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD1 6 #define
> > +PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD2 7
> > +
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_128B 0
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_256B 1
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_512B 2
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_1024B 3
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_2048B 4
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_4096B 5
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD1 6
> > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD2 7
> > +
> > typedef union {
> > struct {
> > UINT16 CorrectableError : 1;
> > @@ -250,16 +268,30 @@ typedef union {
> > UINT32 NoRoEnabledPrPrPassing : 1;
> > UINT32 LtrMechanism : 1;
> > UINT32 TphCompleter : 2;
> > - UINT32 Reserved : 4;
> > + UINT32 LnSystemCLS : 2;
> > + UINT32 TenBitTagCompleterSupported : 1;
> > + UINT32 TenBitTagRequesterSupported : 1;
> > UINT32 Obff : 2;
> > UINT32 ExtendedFmtField : 1;
> > UINT32 EndEndTlpPrefix : 1;
> > UINT32 MaxEndEndTlpPrefixes : 2;
> > - UINT32 Reserved2 : 8;
> > + UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionSupported : 2;
> > + UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired : 1;
> > + UINT32 Reserved : 4;
> > + UINT32 FrsSupported : 1;
>
> This is risky practice. There could be code "out there" that already uses the
> Reserved field in place of the named LnSystemCLS,
> TenBitTagCompleterSupported, TenBitTagRequesterSupported fields.
>
> Of course, my point is *not* that we should keep the old Reserved field
> -- if code uses a field called Reserved, it should be prepared for build breakages,
> when those fields are finally given sensible names.
>
> Instead, what is risky is reintroducing the Reserved field with the same name,
> but different meaning. It could silently break code that refers to Reserved.
>
> Thus, in such cases, it's better to locate the highest-numbered Reserved field in
> the structure, add one to that number, and introduce Reserved(N+1). This is
> guaranteed to trigger a compilation failure in code that refers to Reserved right
> now.
>
> In this particular case (= in structure
> PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2), the new field would be "Reserved3".
> The patch should remove Reserved and Reserved2, and add Reserved3.
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
> > } Bits;
> > UINT32 Uint32;
> > } PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2;
> >
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_NOT_SUPPORTED 0
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_SUPPORTED 1
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_SUPPORTED 2
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_SUPPORTED 3
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_SUPPORTED 6
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_SUPPORTED 7
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_D_SUPPORTED 14
> > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_D_SUPPORTED 15
> > +
> > #define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_MESSAGE BIT0
> > #define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_WAKE BIT1
> >
> > @@ -273,7 +305,8 @@ typedef union {
> > UINT16 IdoRequest : 1;
> > UINT16 IdoCompletion : 1;
> > UINT16 LtrMechanism : 2;
> > - UINT16 Reserved : 2;
> > + UINT16 EmergencyPowerReductionRequest : 1;
> > + UINT16 TenBitTagRequesterEnable : 1;
> > UINT16 Obff : 2;
> > UINT16 EndEndTlpPrefixBlocking : 1;
> > } Bits;
> >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#44428): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/44428
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32555963/1787277
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Javeed, Ashraf
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 9:47 AM
> To: Laszlo Ersek; devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Kinney, Michael D; Gao, Liming; Ni, Ray; Wu, Hao A
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdePkg/PciExpress21.h: Fix the PCIe
> industry standard registers
>
> Hi Laszlo,
> Good catch!
> I shall provide patch V2 with the suggested fix.
>
> Everyone,
> Any other input with this regard?
With Laszlo's comment addressed,
Reviewed-by: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Best Regards,
Hao Wu
>
> Thanks
> Ashraf
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 2:51 AM
> > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Javeed, Ashraf <ashraf.javeed@intel.com>
> > Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Gao, Liming
> > <liming.gao@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A
> > <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdePkg/PciExpress21.h: Fix the PCIe
> industry
> > standard registers
> >
> > Hi Javeed,
> >
> > On 07/25/19 20:23, Javeed, Ashraf wrote:
> > > BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2007
> > > The following two PCI Capability Structure registers are updated as
> > > per the PCI Base Specification Revision 4:-
> > > (1) The PCI Device capability register
> 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2)
> > > needs to be upgraded for the PCI features like -
> > > LN system CLS (LnSystemCLS),
> > > 10b Tag completer/requester register fields
> > > (TenBitTagCompleterSupported, TenBitTagRequesterSupported),
> > > Emergency power reduction support and initialization requirement
> > > (EmergencyPowerReductionSupported,
> > > EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired),
> > > and FRS support (FrsSupported ).
> > >
> > > (2) The PCI Device Control register 2(PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL2)
> > needs
> > > to be upgraded for the -
> > > Emergency power reduction request enabling
> > > (EmergencyPowerReductionRequest), and also the 10b Extended Tag
> > > enabling (TenBitTagRequesterEnable).
> > >
> > > The following two are defined as per the PCI Express Base
> > > Specification Revision 2.1:-
> > > (1) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Maximum Payload Sizes
> > > and Maximum Read Request Sizes defined
> > >
> > > (2) Defined macro definitions for all the ranges of Completion Timeout
> > > value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ashraf Javeed <ashraf.javeed@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h | 39
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > > b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > > index d4003de74c..e652e77a1e 100644
> > > --- a/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > > +++ b/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/PciExpress21.h
> > > @@ -91,6 +91,24 @@ typedef union {
> > > UINT16 Uint16;
> > > } PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CONTROL;
> > >
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_128B 0
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_256B 1
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_512B 2
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_1024B 3 #define
> > > +PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_2048B 4 #define
> > PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_4096B 5
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD1 6 #define
> > > +PCIE_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE_RVSD2 7
> > > +
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_128B 0
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_256B 1
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_512B 2
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_1024B 3
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_2048B 4
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_4096B 5
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD1 6
> > > +#define PCIE_MAX_READ_REQ_SIZE_RVSD2 7
> > > +
> > > typedef union {
> > > struct {
> > > UINT16 CorrectableError : 1;
> > > @@ -250,16 +268,30 @@ typedef union {
> > > UINT32 NoRoEnabledPrPrPassing : 1;
> > > UINT32 LtrMechanism : 1;
> > > UINT32 TphCompleter : 2;
> > > - UINT32 Reserved : 4;
> > > + UINT32 LnSystemCLS : 2;
> > > + UINT32 TenBitTagCompleterSupported : 1;
> > > + UINT32 TenBitTagRequesterSupported : 1;
> > > UINT32 Obff : 2;
> > > UINT32 ExtendedFmtField : 1;
> > > UINT32 EndEndTlpPrefix : 1;
> > > UINT32 MaxEndEndTlpPrefixes : 2;
> > > - UINT32 Reserved2 : 8;
> > > + UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionSupported : 2;
> > > + UINT32 EmergencyPowerReductionInitializationRequired : 1;
> > > + UINT32 Reserved : 4;
> > > + UINT32 FrsSupported : 1;
> >
> > This is risky practice. There could be code "out there" that already uses the
> > Reserved field in place of the named LnSystemCLS,
> > TenBitTagCompleterSupported, TenBitTagRequesterSupported fields.
> >
> > Of course, my point is *not* that we should keep the old Reserved field
> > -- if code uses a field called Reserved, it should be prepared for build
> breakages,
> > when those fields are finally given sensible names.
> >
> > Instead, what is risky is reintroducing the Reserved field with the same
> name,
> > but different meaning. It could silently break code that refers to Reserved.
> >
> > Thus, in such cases, it's better to locate the highest-numbered Reserved
> field in
> > the structure, add one to that number, and introduce Reserved(N+1). This
> is
> > guaranteed to trigger a compilation failure in code that refers to Reserved
> right
> > now.
> >
> > In this particular case (= in structure
> > PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2), the new field would be "Reserved3".
> > The patch should remove Reserved and Reserved2, and add Reserved3.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Laszlo
> >
> > > } Bits;
> > > UINT32 Uint32;
> > > } PCI_REG_PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY2;
> > >
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_NOT_SUPPORTED 0
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_SUPPORTED 1
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_SUPPORTED 2
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_SUPPORTED 3
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_SUPPORTED 6
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_SUPPORTED 7
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_B_C_D_SUPPORTED
> 14
> > > +#define PCIE_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT_RANGE_A_B_C_D_SUPPORTED
> 15
> > > +
> > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_MESSAGE BIT0
> > > #define PCIE_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_OBFF_WAKE BIT1
> > >
> > > @@ -273,7 +305,8 @@ typedef union {
> > > UINT16 IdoRequest : 1;
> > > UINT16 IdoCompletion : 1;
> > > UINT16 LtrMechanism : 2;
> > > - UINT16 Reserved : 2;
> > > + UINT16 EmergencyPowerReductionRequest : 1;
> > > + UINT16 TenBitTagRequesterEnable : 1;
> > > UINT16 Obff : 2;
> > > UINT16 EndEndTlpPrefixBlocking : 1;
> > > } Bits;
> > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#44430): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/44430
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32555963/1787277
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.