[U-Boot] [PATCH 24/69] x86: Move Intel Management Engine code to a common place

[Simon Glass]

Hi Bin,

On 10 March 2016 at 22:27, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Some of the Intel ME code is common to several Intel CPUs. Move it into a
>> common location. Add a header file for report_platform.c also.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> ---
>>
>>  arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/Makefile                 |   2 +
>>  .../cpu/{ivybridge => intel_common}/me_status.c    |  20 +-
>>  .../{ivybridge => intel_common}/report_platform.c  |   2 +-
>>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/Makefile                    |   2 -
>>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/early_me.c                  |  31 +-
>>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/sdram.c                     |   3 +-
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/arch-ivybridge/me.h           | 333 +-----------------
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/arch-ivybridge/sandybridge.h  |   2 -
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/me_common.h                   | 372 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/report_platform.h             |  19 ++
>>  10 files changed, 417 insertions(+), 369 deletions(-)
>>  rename arch/x86/cpu/{ivybridge => intel_common}/me_status.c (93%)
>>  rename arch/x86/cpu/{ivybridge => intel_common}/report_platform.c (98%)
>>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/me_common.h
>>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/report_platform.h
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/Makefile b/arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/Makefile
>> index e9a2b29..50023fe 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/Makefile
>> +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/Makefile
>> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
>>  obj-$(CONFIG_HAVE_MRC) += car.o
>>  obj-y += cpu_common.o
>>  obj-y += lpc_common.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_HAVE_MRC) += me_status.o
>>  ifndef CONFIG_TARGET_EFI
>>  obj-y += microcode_intel.o
>>  endif
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_HAVE_MRC) += report_platform.o
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/me_status.c b/arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/me_status.c
>> similarity index 93%
>> rename from arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/me_status.c
>> rename to arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/me_status.c
>> index 15cf69f..130d219 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/me_status.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/intel_common/me_status.c
>> @@ -128,7 +128,14 @@ static const char *const me_progress_policy_values[] = {
>>         [0x10] = "Required VSCC values for flash parts do not match",
>>  };
>>
>> -void intel_me_status(struct me_hfs *hfs, struct me_gmes *gmes)
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * _intel_me_status() - Check Intel Management Engine status
>> + *
>> + * struct hfs: Firmware status
>> + * struct gmes:        Management engine status
>> + */
>> +static void _intel_me_status(struct me_hfs *hfs, struct me_gmes *gmes)
>>  {
>>         /* Check Current States */
>>         debug("ME: FW Partition Table      : %s\n",
>> @@ -193,3 +200,14 @@ void intel_me_status(struct me_hfs *hfs, struct me_gmes *gmes)
>>         }
>>         debug("\n");
>>  }
>> +
>> +void intel_me_status(struct udevice *me_dev)
>> +{
>> +       struct me_hfs hfs;
>> +       struct me_gmes gmes;
>> +
>> +       pci_read_dword_ptr(me_dev, &hfs, PCI_ME_HFS);
>> +       pci_read_dword_ptr(me_dev, &gmes, PCI_ME_GMES);
>
> The call to pci_read_dword_ptr() looks odd. Why not use the dm_pci_xx
> APIs directly?

It's because these are structus - in fact we are writing to a bitfield
here. It could perhaps use a union.

Regards,
Simon