[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0c7c6704-9f66-469b-b55c-462f66965450@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 11:25:51 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, colinmitchell@...gle.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
abusse@...zon.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] x86/microcode/intel: Define staging state struct
> +/**
> + * struct staging_state - Tracks the current staging process state
> + *
> + * @mmio_base: MMIO base address for staging
> + * @ucode_ptr: Pointer to the microcode image
> + * @ucode_len: Total size of the microcode image
> + * @chunk_size: Size of each data piece
> + * @bytes_sent: Total bytes transmitted so far
> + * @offset: Current offset in the microcode image
> + * @state: Current state of the staging process
> + */
> +struct staging_state {
> + void __iomem *mmio_base;
> + void *ucode_ptr;
This is assigned a single time to ucode_patch_late. Shouldn't it share
the same type? Or, maybe not even get a structure member since it can
only have one value.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists