On 2016-07-30 11:33:43, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Thanks for the warning, and investigation.
>
> Does this mean that you think we should ban the inclusion of .depex
> files in EDK2, including future platform trees?
I don't know about banning it, but at least we could wait for someone
to make a reasonable argument why they are needed.
Even for binary only modules, it looks like the fdf method outlined
below is preferable to a pre-built .depex.
If (at a future point) the reason for using a .depex is to support a
binary only module in a supposedly open platform under EDK II, then I
guess we can decide if that is a good idea at that point.
Should we delete this one unused .depex from the tree?
-Jordan
> (If not, this patch is
> still needed for git to work predictably with these files.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Leif
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:12:49PM +0000, Tim Lewis wrote:
> > It appears that this file is not actually used. It is only
> > referenced in the [Rule.Common.UEFI_DRIVER.NATIVE_BINARY] rule in
> > PlatformPkg.fdf. A little further research shows that an alternate
> > method was used for the actual GOP binary (see below). A grep of the
> > entire tree shows that no one uses this rule NATIVE_BINARY. So it
> > looks like it can just be cut out.
> >
> > BTW, the downside of the method used for the binary version of the
> > GOP driver, is that those drivers cannot use PCDs, since the PCD
> > database is created based on references in the .inf. GOP works
> > because it is pure UEFI and (therefore) doesn't use PCDs.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > FILE DRIVER = FF0C8745-3270-4439-B74F-3E45F8C77064 {
> > SECTION DXE_DEPEX_EXP = {gPlatformGOPPolicyGuid}
> > SECTION PE32 =
> > Vlv2MiscBinariesPkg/GOP/7.2.1011/RELEASE_VS2008x86/$(DXE_ARCHITECTURE)/IntelGopDriver.efi
> > SECTION UI = "IntelGopDriver"
> > }
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Leif
> > Lindholm
> > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:45 AM
> > To: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
> > Cc: michael.d.kin...@intel.com; Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>;
> > edk2-de...@ml01.01.org; Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com>
> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file, dealing with
> > .depex
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:03:13PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > > On 07/07/16 16:24, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > > > Git tends to see .depex files as text, causing hideous patches being
> > > > generated (and breaking PatchCheck.py).
> > > >
> > > > Add a .gitattributes file instructing git to treat them as binary.
> > > >
> > > > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> > > > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > .gitattributes | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 .gitattributes
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..2d8a45b
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/.gitattributes
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > > > +*.depex binary
> > > >
> > >
> > > What generates .depex files? I've never seen any.
> > >
> > > Also, unless you add .depex files with "git add" to the set of tracked
> > > files, no patches / diffs should cover them. What am I missing? :)
> > >
> > > ... Hm, after
> > >
> > > $ find . -iname "*.depex"
> > >
> > > I see .depex files in Build/ (which should be ignored altogether), and
> > >
> > > ./Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex
> > >
> > > Why does that file exist in the tree? Let me see... git log says nothing
> > > relevant (the file dates back to commit 3cbfba02fef9, "Upload
> > > BSD-licensed Vlv2TbltDevicePkg and Vlv2DeviceRefCodePkg to").
> > >
> > > Grepping the tree for the filename itself leads to:
> > >
> > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/PlatformPkg.fdf: DXE_DEPEX DXE_DEPEX Optional
> > > $(WORKSPACE)/$(PLATFORM_PACKAGE)/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex
> > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/PlatformPkgGcc.fdf: DXE_DEPEX DXE_DEPEX Optional
> > > $(WORKSPACE)/$(PLATFORM_PACKAGE)/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex
> > >
> > > Do these rules exist to override the DEPEX sections of binary-only
> > > modules? If so: that's horrible.
> > >
> > > Anyway, given that edk2 contains at least one .depex file, and your patch
> > > is correct according to
> > > <https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Attributes>:
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > I had hoped for comments from someone else on cc, since we don't have any
> > Maintainers.txt entry for the top level directory :)
> >
> > But if I don't hear anything before Monday, I'll push it then.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Leif
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > edk2-devel mailing list
> > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
