On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 18:02, Jeff Brasen <jbra...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 9:54 AM > To: Jeff Brasen <jbra...@nvidia.com> > Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>; Girish > Pathak <girish.pat...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ArmPkg/ArmScmiDxe: Add clock enable function > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 01:37, Jeff Brasen <jbra...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > Leif/Ard, > > > > > > Any comments on this v2 patch for this? > > > > > > Hi Jeff, > > I'm not sure what level of bikeshedding is justified when it comes to a > driver such as this one, which is very recent, and mostly for platform > internal use. However, I will note that the current versioning approach > permits a *client* of the old SCMI_CLOCK_PROTOCOL to be built that invokes > ->Enable(), which is not defined for it. This somewhat defeats the purpose of > the versioning, since the whole point is to avoid invoking ->Enable() on > older implementations of the protocol. > > I'd be fine with just modifying the protocol, but if we decide we need > versioning, we should not modify the public interface of the old one. > How the driver reuses one implementation to back the other is another matter, > of course. > [JMB] I can either just change without versioning (that was my original > approach but I also changed the guid which would primarily catch new clients > running on old platforms from calling an undefined function), I am fine with > either that (with maybe a switch back to original guid if we are not > concerned about that issue) or a future update that creates a full v2 version > of the protocol in the header. >
Maybe Leif disagrees, but I am not too concerned about just changing it. This is not a protocol that 3rd party drivers would invoke, right? _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
