On 18 January 2016 at 15:38, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 18 January 2016 at 16:28, Ryan Harkin <ryan.har...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 18 January 2016 at 15:11, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> On 18 January 2016 at 16:08, Ryan Harkin <ryan.har...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On 18 January 2016 at 14:39, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 18 January 2016 at 15:29, Ryan Harkin <ryan.har...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> ARM Ltd Platform support is migrating to use OpenPlatformPkg [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently, Juno and FVP exist both in EDK2's ArmPlatformPkg and in >>>>>> OpenPlatformPkg. And they are starting to diverge, with >>>>>> OpenPlatformPkg being the most up-to-date with current developments. >>>>>> To prevent this divergence, remove the .dsc and .fdf files from >>>>>> ArmPlatformPkg and leave OpenPlatformPkg as the master. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can't remove ArmJuno.dec yet because ACPI still uses it to set the >>>>>> include path to ArmPlatform.h. >>>>>> >>>>>> [PATCH 1/2] ArmPlatformPkg: remove ArmVExpress-FVP-AArch64 >>>>>> [PATCH 2/2] ArmPlatformPkg: remove ArmJuno.dsc/fdf >>>>>> >>>>>> ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/ArmJuno.dsc | 291 >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/ArmJuno.fdf | 365 >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ArmPlatformPkg/ArmVExpressPkg/ArmVExpress-FVP-AArch64.dsc | 317 >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ArmPlatformPkg/ArmVExpressPkg/ArmVExpress-FVP-AArch64.fdf | 401 >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://git.linaro.org/uefi/OpenPlatformPkg.git >>>>> >>>>> Shouldn't we sync OpenPlatformPkg with the latest EDK2 versions first? >>>> >>>> Ooops. >>>> >>>> I wasn't aware of any changes in the EDK2 versions that we need to >>>> carry over. From what I can see, there are changes in OpenPlatformPkg >>>> that are not in EDK2, but not the other way round, except this change: >>>> >>>> 660aaec 2015-12-15 ArmVExpressPkg/ArmVExpress-FVP-AArch64: run GICv3 >>>> in v3 mode [Ard Biesheuvel] >>>> >>>> The ARM Landing Team (that'll be me!) ships GICv2 .dts files for the >>>> FVP models and we don't have a plan to change to running with GICv3, >>>> except in legacy mode. So I'd revert that change anyway until I was >>>> ready to support GICv3 properly. >>> >>> In that case, could we please leave FVP in? Unlike OpenPlatformPkg, >>> EDK2 is a reference implementation, i.e., someone looking to implement >>> something for his own platform containing a GICv3 should have a >>> reference that makes sense, >> >> I don't think that's a good approach either. I could make GICv2/3 a >> build option in OpenPlatformPkg. I'd even concede to making GICv3 the >> default and change my own build scripts & CI jobs to use legacy mode, >> despite... >> >>> and not some bodge that happens to work >>> because you guys are only interested in GICv2 mode anyway. >> >> Well, that's not a very nice way to put it :-P We supported FVP >> before GICv3 was working, so we had to use GICv2. We don't had the >> capacity to make and test the changes needed to support GICv3. > > Apologies if I sounded a bit abrasive there.
No offence taken :-) > It's just that our > objectives are not entirely aligned here, I think. Removing GICv3 > support from FVP does not improve EDK2's quality as a reference > implementation, even if it runs equally well for everyone that > actually uses it. > > I produce FVP snapshots here: > http://snapshots.linaro.org/components/kernel/leg-virt-tianocore-edk2-upstream/latest/ > > that have the DTBs for all FVP flavors built in, and run equally well > on Foundation/GICv3 and Base with either GICv2 or v3 (since the GIC > memory address is not runtime configurable). > > For me personally, that is useful since using FVP Base is a pain when > your uplink is dodgy (which tends to happen if you live in an RV) so I > use Foundation and only switch to Base if i have to, prefereably with > the exact same image. But I am ny no means the standard we should all > live by, of course. > > I am happy to switch to OpenPlatformPkg for building those once it is > synced up with EDK2, but I'd prefer it if we don't start backing out > changes which are arguably correct just for convenience. > You don't say if you're happy with my idea of making GICv3 default but optional in OpenPlatformPkg... although I can't see why you would object, unless you have a stronger than normal pet hate for ifdef _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
