DynamicTablesPkg: Adds SPMI table generator

[abdattar]

Adds ACPI SPMI table generator library.
Updates acpi standard table enum with spmi.
Updates arch common namespace object and parser.
Updates the Readme.

Cc: Sami Mujawar [email protected]
Cc: Pierre Gondois [email protected]

Description

Adds ACPI SPMI table generator library.

• Breaking change?
  • Breaking change - Does this PR cause a break in build or boot behavior?
  • Examples: Does it add a new library class or move a module to a different repo.
• Impacts security?
  • Security - Does this PR have a direct security impact?
  • Examples: Crypto algorithm change or buffer overflow fix.
• Includes tests?
  • Tests - Does this PR include any explicit test code?
  • Examples: Unit tests or integration tests.

How This Was Tested

Tested on AMD platform and dumped the acpi tables.

Integration Instructions

N/A

[samimujawar]

The Acpiview PR for this table is "ShellPkg: Add support to parse SPMI table in acpiview #5980" (#5980).

[abdattar]

Hi @pierregondois,
Thanks for the quick review, I have updated the patch after addressing the review comments.
Thanks
AbduL

[lgao4]

The change in MdePkg is good to me.

[pierregondois]

@samimujawar @abdattar I assume there should only be only one IPMI per platform, so linking the two objects with a Token should not be necessary right ?

---

The SPMI table might require the following objects in an SSDT table:

• _IFT (Interface type)
• _SRV (spec. revision)
  in prevision of creating an associated SSDT table generator, would it be possible to add a field for the spec. revision in the CM_ARCH_COMMON_SPMI_INTERFACE_INFO object ?
  This would allow not to have a hard coded value in the 2 table generators

[abdattar]

@samimujawar @abdattar I assume there should only be only one IPMI per platform, so linking the two objects with a Token should not be necessary right ?

The SPMI table might require the following objects in an SSDT table:

• _IFT (Interface type)
• _SRV (spec. revision)
  in prevision of creating an associated SSDT table generator, would it be possible to add a field for the spec. revision in the CM_ARCH_COMMON_SPMI_INTERFACE_INFO object ?
  This would allow not to have a hard coded value in the 2 table generators

Revision value is obtained from IPMI library call, if the call fails then default version 2 is applied.
I dont think we need to provide revision number in configution object.

[pierregondois]

@samimujawar @abdattar I assume there should only be only one IPMI per platform, so linking the two objects with a Token should not be necessary right ?

The SPMI table might require the following objects in an SSDT table:

    _IFT (Interface type)
    _SRV (spec. revision)
    in prevision of creating an associated SSDT table generator, would it be possible to add a field for the spec. revision in the CM_ARCH_COMMON_SPMI_INTERFACE_INFO object ?
    This would allow not to have a hard coded value in the 2 table generators

Revision value is obtained from IPMI library call, if the call fails then default version 2 is applied.
I dont think we need to provide revision number in configution object.

Yes right, sorry I forgot it was done like that. Ok for me then

[abdattar]

Hi @pierregondois ,
Missed the below comment.
"@samimujawar @abdattar I assume there should only be only one IPMI per platform, so linking the two objects with a Token should not be necessary right ?"

[Abdul]
Yes, there will be only single IPMI per platform.
each object has its own purpose.

1. EArchCommonObjSpmiInterfaceInfo: Gives information about abstract interface type and how the resources are mapped.
2. EArchCommonObjSpmiInterruptDeviceInfo: Gives information about what type of interrupt it uses and device location.
   Current/modern platform do not have BMC/IPMI devices on the host board.
   Usually it will be outside of the host.
   EArchCommonObjSpmiInterruptDeviceInfo is legacy information, current platform dont need this information.
   To simplify(minimize the configuration fields) the configuration I have separated it.

[abdattar]

Hi @pierregondois , @samimujawar , @lgao4
Addressed the review comments, please review and approve the PR.
Thanks
AbduL