On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:54 PM Kirkendall, Garrett via groups.io <garrett.kirkendall=amd....@groups.io> wrote:
> [Public] > > > > Isaac, > > > > One of the obvious hindrances to acceptance is the Firmware Volumes with > Fsp in the name. They would be obvious to an Intel FSP solution, but they > are not obvious to any other solution. Would it be possible to give them a > more generic descriptive name that would apply to any type of solution? > > > > *GARRETT KIRKENDALL* > > > *----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/AMD> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/AMD> | amd.com <http://www.amd.com/> > > > > > > Words to live by: "Slow is Smooth. Smooth is Fast." > > > Garrett, Surely you've got bigger issues with the MinPlatform than naming right? I don't see how this can ever be a hindrance, particularly considering all you've got in the final firmware images are GUIDs. https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/master/Platform/Qemu/QemuOpenBoardPkg/QemuOpenBoardPkg.fdf is an example of a virtual platform for QEMU in MinPlatform fashion. Combine that and some other Intel platform and you probably have a decent idea of how an AMD platform would look like (mentioned QOBP because of the lack of FSP and pre-mem CAR, although AIUI AGESA does expose an FSP interface). There are no problems by leaving firmware volumes you don't need/don't make sense (like e.g Fsp-T) empty. -- Pedro -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#99361): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/99361 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96222267/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
