[edk2-devel] The principles of EDK2 module reconstruction for archs

Wed Sep 28 15:00:45 UTC 2022

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

I just had created PR to update edkII C coding standard spec for the file and directory naming. We can review and confirm this update first and then go back to the principles of EDK2 module reconstruction for archs.
Here is the PR:
https://github.com/tianocore-docs/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification/pull/2

The naming rule is mainly for the new module or new file IMO. Some existing module may not meet the guidelines mentioned in this spec. Thus we need the principles of EDK2 module reconstruction on the existing module to support other processor archs and not impacting the existing platforms (e.g. rename the INF file or directory to meet the guidelines).

Sunil, seems RISC-V CpuDxe meet the guideline. Please check it.
Just feel that having  CpuDxe.c to Riscv64 folder is not quite a best solution. I think at least we can abstract the protocol structure and protocol installation under CpuDxe\ and have the arch implementation under arch folder. We can discuss this later after we confirming the guideline and principles.

Thanks
Abner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sunil V L <sunilvl at ventanamicro.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 3:34 PM
> To: devel at edk2.groups.io; ray.ni at intel.com
> Cc: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang at amd.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; lichao <lichao at loongson.cn>; Kirkendall,
> Garrett <Garrett.Kirkendall at amd.com>; Grimes, Paul
> <Paul.Grimes at amd.com>; He, Jiangang <Jiangang.He at amd.com>; Attar,
> AbdulLateef (Abdul Lateef) <AbdulLateef.Attar at amd.com>; Leif Lindholm
> <quic_llindhol at quicinc.com>; Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] The principles of EDK2 module reconstruction for
> archs
> 
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper
> caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 03:33:45AM +0000, Ni, Ray wrote:
> Hi Ray,
> >
> >   1.  When a new arch's implementation is introduced to the existing
> module which was developed for the specific arch:
> >
> >   1.  The folder reconstruction:
> >
> >   *   Create arch folder for the existing arch implementation
> > [Ray] Do you move existing arch implementation to that arch folder? It will
> break existing platforms a lot.
> >
> >   *   Create the arch folder for the new introduced arch
> > [Ray] I agree. But if we don't create arch folder for existing arch
> implementation, the pkg layout will be a mess.
> >
> > [Ray] Hard for me to understand all the principles here. Maybe we review
> existing code including to-be-upstreamed code and decide how to go.
> >
> 
> Could you please take a look below changes which is trying to add RISC-V
> support for CpuDxe?
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> ub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-
> staging%2Fcommit%2Fbba1a11be47dd091734e185afbed73ea75708749&
> data=05%7C01%7Cabner.chang%40amd.com%7Ca419e6a010d34fde464b08d
> aa123e080%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C63799947
> 2732494527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj
> oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sd
> ata=Vq6pJLnn8yJrJhFZn7LfLbZzrtpG4n1VLWgAil6J38U%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> ub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-
> staging%2Fcommit%2F7fccf92a97a6d0618a20f10622220e78b3687906&da
> ta=05%7C01%7Cabner.chang%40amd.com%7Ca419e6a010d34fde464b08daa1
> 23e080%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C63799947273
> 2494527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata
> =xFmvUv58vh4AUAM17Qy9G5jZWFZlK2Ozt3njpG1e8%2BY%3D&reserv
> ed=0
> 
> What do you suggest with above example?
> 
> 1) Common INF for all architectures - but modify INF alone, no X86 folder
> creation.
> 
> This is what I have done in the commit above. May be of least impact to
> existing code since it is only INF change. But like you mentioned this is bit
> weird that X86 files will remain in root folder directly along with some
> common files.
> 
> 2) Common INF (CpuDxe.inf) + create arch folders X86, X64, IA32, RiscV64 etc
> 
> IMO, this is probably the best approach. What would be the challenges with
> this?
> 
> 3) Separate INF for arch like CpuDxe.inf for x86, CpuDxeRiscV64.inf for RISC-V.
> 
> This again probably is not a good idea.
> 
> 4) If the module/library is specific to one arch (ex: SMM(X86), SBI(RISC-V)),
> then create separate INF.
> 
> Thanks!
> Sunil

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#94467): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/94467
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/93872791/1813853
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 embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Chang, Abner via groups.io" <abner.chang=amd.com at groups.io>
Subject: [edk2-devel] [tianocore-docs][PATCH] edk II C Coding Standard: File and directory naming guidelines
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:44:49 +0000
Size: 22457
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/attachments/20220928/2eb5d999/attachment-0001.eml>