On 21 July 2018 at 03:57, Marvin H?user <[email protected]> wrote: > Good day, > > I have been reading through the recently imported StandaloneMmPkg and found > three odd things. > > > 1. GUID prefixes: GUIDs defined in StandaloneMmPkg.dec either have no > common prefix at all ("gMmFv") or use the "gEfi" prefix. Maybe the > MdeModulePkg-style "gEdkii" prefix could be used for a uniform style?
The gEdkii prefix is used for GUIDs that are not defined in the PI or UEFI specs. The gEfi prefix is used for GUIDs that are defined in either of those specs. I'm not sure what the rule is for prefixless GUIDs though. > 2. The "gEfiMmConfigurationProtocolGuid" name is common between Standalone > (StandaloneMmPkg.dec) and Traditional (MdePkg.dec) MM context despite having > a different value of course. Shouldn't the naming reflect which is > traditional and which is Standalone? I haven't checked in depth, but which is > chosen when a module consumes both MdePkg and StandaloneMmPkg? That smells like a bug to me. > 3. While .dec already uses the "Mmram" naming scheme, its header declares > the MemoryReserve GUID as "gEfiMmPeiS(!)mramMemoryReserveGuid". Furthermore, > the header references the SMM CIS (which has been replaced with "MM CIS" as > part of the renaming), while the GUID has changed and the structure does not > match the deprecated specification anyway. May I suggest to turn this GUID > into a "gEdkii"-style GUID and remove all references to the SMM CIS? Maybe > use the "EDKII_" prefix for "EFI_MMRAM_HOB_DESCRIPTOR_BLOCK" too? I wanted to > prepare a patch, but I cannot compile the package at the moment and don't > want to risk submitting anything broken. > As mentioned above, EDKII prefixes are inappropriate here, since standalone MM is defined in the PI spec. I will let others comment on the SMM CIS thing. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
