[PATCH 08/12] sbbr/rsdp: Add initial rsdp acpi tests as per sbbr.
Colin Ian King
colin.king at canonical.com
Thu Mar 2 23:52:36 UTC 2017
I'm getting white space issues when I apply the patch:
Applying: sbbr/rsdp: Add initial rsdp acpi tests as per sbbr.
.git/rebase-apply/patch:120: space before tab in indent.
fwts_passed(fw, "SBBR: Structure of RSDP Table is consistent with
ACPI 6.0 or later and uses 64 bit xsdt addresses.");
.git/rebase-apply/patch:124: space before tab in indent.
fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL,
.git/rebase-apply/patch:125: space before tab in indent.
"SBBR RSDP:",
.git/rebase-apply/patch:126: space before tab in indent.
"Structure of RSDP Table is not consistent with ACPI 6.0 or
later and/or does not use 64 bit xsdt addresses.");
warning: 4 lines add whitespace errors.
On 02/03/17 22:26, Supreeth Venkatesh wrote:
> Server Base Boot Requirements (SBBR) specification is intended for SBSA-
> compliant 64-bit ARMv8 servers.
> It defines the base firmware requirements for out-of-box support of any
> ARM SBSA-compatible Operating System or hypervisor.
> The requirements in this specification are expected to be minimal yet
> complete for booting a multi-core ARMv8 server platform, while leaving
> plenty of room for OEM or ODM innovations and design details.
> For more information, download the SBBR specification here:
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.den0044b/index.html
>
> This change introduces test cases as per SBBR specification to rsdp
> acpi. These test cases may be subset/superset of rsdp acpi tests already
> existing. However, to preserve "sbbr" classification, new file is
> created, even when most of the code is re-used from acpi/rsdp.
>
> Signed-off-by: Supreeth Venkatesh <supreeth.venkatesh at arm.com>
> ---
> src/sbbr/rsdp/rsdp.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 134 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 src/sbbr/rsdp/rsdp.c
>
> diff --git a/src/sbbr/rsdp/rsdp.c b/src/sbbr/rsdp/rsdp.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..0a11f91
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/sbbr/rsdp/rsdp.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2015-2017 Canonical
> + * Copyright (C) 2017 ARM Ltd
> + *
> + * Portions of this code original from the Linux-ready Firmware Developer Kit
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> + * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
> + * of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + */
> +#include "fwts.h"
> +
> +#if defined(FWTS_HAS_SBBR)
> +
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +#include <inttypes.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <ctype.h>
> +
> +static fwts_acpi_table_info *table;
> +
> +static int sbbr_rsdp_init(fwts_framework *fw)
> +{
> + if (fwts_acpi_find_table(fw, "RSDP", 0, &table) != FWTS_OK) {
> + fwts_log_error(fw, "Cannot read ACPI tables.");
> + return FWTS_ERROR;
> + }
> + if (!table) {
> +
> + fwts_log_error(fw,
> + "ACPI RSDP is required for the "
> + "%s target architecture.",
> + fwts_arch_get_name(fw->target_arch));
> + return FWTS_ERROR;
> + }
formatting has extra tabs, please clean that up.
> +
> + /* We know there is an RSDP now, so do a quick sanity check */
> + if (table->length == 0) {
> + fwts_log_error(fw,
> + "ACPI RSDP table has zero length");
> + return FWTS_ERROR;
> + }
> + return FWTS_OK;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * RSDP Root System Description Pointer
> + */
> +static int sbbr_rsdp_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
> +{
> + fwts_acpi_table_rsdp *rsdp = (fwts_acpi_table_rsdp *)table->data;
> + uint8_t checksum;
> +
> + /*This includes only the first 20 bytes of this table, bytes
> + 0 to 19, including the checksum field. These bytes must sum to
> + zero. */
I'd prefer if the comments in the code (and other patches) would match
the general fwts block style, e.g.
/*
* This includes only the first 20 bytes of this table, bytes
* 0 to 19, including the checksum field. These bytes must
* sum to zero.
*/
> + const char RSDP_SIGNATURE[] = {'R', 'S', 'D', ' ', 'P', 'T', 'R', ' '};
> + bool signature_pass = false;
you don't need to initialize the above boolean
> + const int CHECKSUM_BYTES = 20;
> + bool checksum_pass = false;
..and this one ^
> + const int SBBR_RSDP_REVISION = 2;
> + bool rsdp_revision_pass = false;
..and this one ^
> + const uint32_t SBBR_RSDP_LENGTH = 36;
> + bool rsdp_length_pass = false;
..and this one ^
> + const int EXT_CHECKSUM_BYTES = 36;
> + bool ext_checksum_pass = false;
> + bool xsdt_address_pass = false;
please don't make const variables all caps. lowercase is the convention.
> +
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "RSDP Signature = %.8s", rsdp->signature);
> + signature_pass = strncmp(rsdp->signature, RSDP_SIGNATURE, sizeof(rsdp->signature))? false : true;
quite a long line, can it be less than 80 cols wide
> +
> + /* verify first checksum */
> + checksum = fwts_checksum(table->data, CHECKSUM_BYTES);
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "RSDP Checksum = 0x%x", checksum);
> + checksum_pass = (checksum == 0)? true : false;
this is better:
checksum_pass = (checksum == 0);
> +
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "RSDP Revision = 0x%x", rsdp->revision);
> + rsdp_revision_pass = (rsdp->revision >= SBBR_RSDP_REVISION)? true : false;
space please between ) and ?
... SBBR_RSDP_REVISION) ? true : false;
> +
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "RSDP Length = 0x%x", rsdp->length);
> + rsdp_length_pass = (rsdp->length == SBBR_RSDP_LENGTH)? true : false;
space between )?
> +
> + checksum = fwts_checksum(table->data, EXT_CHECKSUM_BYTES);
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "RSDP Extended Checksum = 0x%x", checksum);
> + ext_checksum_pass = (checksum == 0)? true : false;
space between )?
> +
> + if ( (rsdp->xsdt_address != 0) &&
> + (rsdp->rsdt_address == 0) )
> + {
> + xsdt_address_pass = true;
> + }
format the above as follows is preferred:
if ((rsdp->xsdt_address != 0) &&
(rsdp->rsdt_address == 0))
xsdt_address_pass = true;
> +
> + if ( (signature_pass == true) &&
> + (checksum_pass == true) &&
> + (rsdp_revision_pass == true) &&
> + (rsdp_length_pass == true) &&
> + (ext_checksum_pass == true) &&
> + (xsdt_address_pass == true) )
> + {
> + fwts_passed(fw, "SBBR: Structure of RSDP Table is consistent with ACPI 6.0 or later and uses 64 bit xsdt addresses.");
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL,
> + "SBBR RSDP:",
> + "Structure of RSDP Table is not consistent with ACPI 6.0 or later and/or does not use 64 bit xsdt addresses.");
> + }
> +
The formatting style above needs reworking,
if (( ... ) &&
( ... ) &&
....
( ... ))
fwts_passed(...)
else
fwts_failed(...)
> + return FWTS_OK;
> +}
> +
> +static fwts_framework_minor_test sbbr_rsdp_tests[] = {
> + { sbbr_rsdp_test1, "RSDP Root System Description Pointer test." },
> + { NULL, NULL }
> +};
> +
> +static fwts_framework_ops sbbr_rsdp_ops = {
> + .description = "SBBR RSDP Root System Description Pointer tests.",
> + .init = sbbr_rsdp_init,
> + .minor_tests = sbbr_rsdp_tests
> +};
> +
> +FWTS_REGISTER("sbbr_rsdp", &sbbr_rsdp_ops, FWTS_TEST_ANYTIME, FWTS_FLAG_TEST_SBBR)
> +
> +#endif
>
More information about the fwts-devel
mailing list