回复: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platforms] [RFC] Compatibility Expectations in edk2-platforms

Tue Oct 13 02:29:03 UTC 2020

CLANG tool issue has been resolved. CLANGPDB tool chain has been added in
Edk2. OVMF IA32X64 platform has been verified on Windows/Linux/Mac with
CLANGPDB tool chain. On release build, OVMF IA32X64 can generates the same
binary BIOS images on Windows/Linux/Mac OS. 

Here is wiki page
https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/CLANG9-Tools-Chain. 

Thanks

Liming

发件人: bounce+27952+65963+4905953+8761045 at groups.io
<bounce+27952+65963+4905953+8761045 at groups.io> 代表 Andrew Fish via
groups.io
发送时间: 2020年10月7日 13:42
收件人: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel at edk2.groups.io>;
michael.kubacki at outlook.com
抄送: Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone at intel.com>; Leif Lindholm
<leif at nuviainc.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>; Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel at arm.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni at intel.com>; Chaganty, Rangasai V
<rangasai.v.chaganty at intel.com>; Dong, Eric <eric.dong at intel.com>; Bi,
Dandan <dandan.bi at intel.com>; Mike Kinney <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>;
Steele, Kelly <kelly.steele at intel.com>; Sun, Zailiang
<zailiang.sun at intel.com>; Qian, Yi <yi.qian at intel.com>; Chiu, Chasel
<chasel.chiu at intel.com>; Agyeman, Prince <prince.agyeman at intel.com>; Feng,
Bob C <bob.c.feng at intel.com>; Liming Gao <gaoliming at byosoft.com.cn>; Abner
Chang <abner.chang at hpe.com>; Daniel Schaefer <daniel.schaefer at hpe.com>;
Gilbert Chen <gilbert.chen at hpe.com>; Christian Walter
<christian.walter at 9elements.com>
主题: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platforms] [RFC] Compatibility Expectations in
edk2-platforms

On Oct 6, 2020, at 10:01 PM, Michael Kubacki <michael.kubacki at outlook.com
<mailto:michael.kubacki at outlook.com> > wrote:

Hi Nate,

On 10/6/2020 9:19 PM, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:

Hey Michael,
On 10/5/20, 3:36 PM, Michael Kubacki <michael.kubacki at outlook.com
<mailto:michael.kubacki at outlook.com> > wrote:

1. Inconsistent maintainer support
    * Some packages currently do not build. Some packages are not getting
updated often.

    * Example: Last week I had to update Vlv2TbltDevicePkg which did not
build.
    * Example: Many packages only document support for old toolchains.

100% agreed here.

2. Inconsistent toolchain support

To build these according to instruction, a developer needs to install Visual
Studio dating back to 2015 (though it is 2020), and multiple versions of
iASL,
NASM, a separate host OS for Linux/Windows builds, etc.

IMHO, the best way forward would be to finish the EDK II native clang port
that Liming started some time ago. This would need to include robust support
for Windows, Linux, and Mac host systems. From what I remember the last
status update was issues with stability of the LLVM linker's support for
PE/COFF output.

Aligning on Clang support would be great. It's worth noting that current CI
support in edk2 does not support Clang so that needs to be enabled -
<https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/.pytool/Readme.md>
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/.pytool/Readme.md.

Is adding a new toolchain just a documenting the config, and testing? 

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

Is anyone looking at those LLVM issues now?

Otherwise build reproducibility will always be a problem since the binary
generated will be different depending on which OS/compiler the developer was
using at the time. The coreboot community handles this issue by only
supporting GCC, which I think is inappropriate for TianoCore since Windows
ports of GCC differ greatly from Linux versions. While I think the goal of
supporting many different C toolchains is admirable and definitely
appropriate for edk2 core code... for edk2-platforms I think it would be
better to have everyone agree on a single cross-platform toolchain; at least
for x86 and ARM since clang supports those architectures well (maybe other
architectures depending on the clang's maturity.)

3. Inconsistent build requirements

Many builds use the "build" command. Others have script wrappers with
unique parameters. Platforms are free to choose what they do and do not
support and developers have to figure it out.

We solved that for MinPlatform based boards with build_bios.py, but agreed
that that at an overall project level this is still an issue. I believe Bob
and Liming were working on adding extensibility to BaseTools needed for
"build" to work everywhere, but I'm not sure what the status of that work
is.

I've always liked the simplicity of build_bios.py. There's also a lot of
effort put into edk2-pytool-extensions. I'm not partial to any particular
solution as I've had positive experiences with both but having more
consistency at a repo level would be awesome.

Perhaps a community discussion around leveraging existing tool support for
open source platforms would help with adoption. Apart from consistency
across open source platforms, usage could also serve as a practical example
to closed source consumers on how to better integrate such tools into their
environments.

4. Lack of build health indicators

Basically, there is no public CI across platforms. It is not clear exactly
what
platform builds are broken, what configurations they are broken against,
how long they have been broken, etc.

Public CI seems like a great idea. Public automated testing would also be
awesome. I believe 9elements has been working on building a pool of hardware
for automated testing of Open System Firmware, maybe we should check and see
if they would be interested in supporting automated testing for TianoCore.
We would also need to see what the intersection is between what they have in
their pool and what boards are supported in edk2-platforms.

I look forward to hearing from 9elements.

Do you think it would be feasible for Intel to support something like
KabylakeOpenBoardPkg/GalagoPro3 and/or WhiskeylakeOpenBoardPkg/UpXtreme in
public CI?

Without such support, I believe platforms can only have a dependency on
edk2 (not vice versa). Maintainers move their edk2 pointer when they have
verified that their platform properly integrates the latest changes. This is
relatively common in relationships with package-based dependencies and
how this is typically handled outside edk2-platforms. I believe this is
reasonable even with public CI in place unless maintainers understand and
accept the challenges and additional support that is involved with being on
edk2/master.

Coreboot handles this problem by auditing the how good the maintenance is of
boards over time. If a given board becomes stale, then the board becomes a
candidate for getting deleted from master and moved to a legacy branch.
Sometimes entire technologies are dropped, for example FSP v1.0 is only
supported up to coreboot 4.11, for that reason there is a long-lived
4.11_branch in coreboot git to maintain platforms dependent on FSP v1.0
binaries.
I think we need some sort of deprecation process for edk2-platforms as well
because as you note, the Bay Trail Minnow Max is not receiving particularly
good maintenance at this point. A similar issue happened with
PurleyOpenBoardPkg last year and you actually sent the patch series to
delete it.

Deprecation branches sound reasonable to me personally. I'm not aware of
prior documentation or discussion around platform deprecation in
edk2-platforms. Is anyone else?

I just wanted to give my observation of some recent challenges and see if
the community can align on some practices to help simplify edk2-platforms
integration and testing.

Thanks,
Michael

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#66146): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/66146
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/77475895/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/attachments/20201013/b9301836/attachment.htm>