Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
Cool, thanks for considering that! > -Original Message- > From: Ard Biesheuvel > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 12:03 AM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; quic_llind...@quicinc.com > Cc: Yao, Jiewen ; Pierre Gondois > ; Li, Yi1 ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 > ; Jiang, Guomin ; Ard > Biesheuvel ; Sami Mujawar > ; Gerd Hoffmann > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow > dependency upon ArmPkg > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 10:55, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 14:46:05 +, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > > This Bugzilla is filed in 2022-10-26. Now it is 2023-11-21. > > > > Oh, I'm sure I voiced the same opinion for many years before someone > > (rightly) told me to go gile that bugzilla. > > > > > I agree with you that it is a big task. May I know what is the plan? > > > E.g. who is working on that? When do you expect it will be done? > > > > On my list of "big items" to deal with, this comes after github PR > > migration and line-ending conversion. > > > > > According to the dependency rule, what we need is only *interface* > > > definition, but not *implementation*. > > > That means the really requirement here is to move *interface* from > > > ArmPkg to MdePkg, you can still keep the library implementation in > > > ArmPkg. (It is just a subset of this Bugzilla) > > > > That ... is an option I had not previously considered. > > Long-term we would still like to smash ArmLib into BaseLib, but if > > MdePkg maintainers would be OK with moving ArmLib.h into MdePkg... > > > > > Also, I don’t think CPUID check really matters here - since it is only > implementation. > > > As long as, you have interface in MdePkg, then your INF can declare that > interface. > > > You can still put real implementation in ArmPkg - no requirement to move. > > > That benefit is that you don’t need to add ArmPkg dependency in yaml. > > > > I can spin up a patch for that to get merged shortly after stable tag > > to give plenty of time to catch any issues that may arise from moving > > such a fundamental file. (These would likely be bugs, but > > nevertheless...) > > > > This sounds like a reasonable solution to me for the short term. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#111563): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111563 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102725178/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 10:55, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 14:46:05 +, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > This Bugzilla is filed in 2022-10-26. Now it is 2023-11-21. > > Oh, I'm sure I voiced the same opinion for many years before someone > (rightly) told me to go gile that bugzilla. > > > I agree with you that it is a big task. May I know what is the plan? > > E.g. who is working on that? When do you expect it will be done? > > On my list of "big items" to deal with, this comes after github PR > migration and line-ending conversion. > > > According to the dependency rule, what we need is only *interface* > > definition, but not *implementation*. > > That means the really requirement here is to move *interface* from > > ArmPkg to MdePkg, you can still keep the library implementation in > > ArmPkg. (It is just a subset of this Bugzilla) > > That ... is an option I had not previously considered. > Long-term we would still like to smash ArmLib into BaseLib, but if > MdePkg maintainers would be OK with moving ArmLib.h into MdePkg... > > > Also, I don’t think CPUID check really matters here - since it is only > > implementation. > > As long as, you have interface in MdePkg, then your INF can declare that > > interface. > > You can still put real implementation in ArmPkg - no requirement to move. > > That benefit is that you don’t need to add ArmPkg dependency in yaml. > > I can spin up a patch for that to get merged shortly after stable tag > to give plenty of time to catch any issues that may arise from moving > such a fundamental file. (These would likely be bugs, but > nevertheless...) > This sounds like a reasonable solution to me for the short term. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#111556): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111556 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102725178/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 14:46:05 +, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > This Bugzilla is filed in 2022-10-26. Now it is 2023-11-21. Oh, I'm sure I voiced the same opinion for many years before someone (rightly) told me to go gile that bugzilla. > I agree with you that it is a big task. May I know what is the plan? > E.g. who is working on that? When do you expect it will be done? On my list of "big items" to deal with, this comes after github PR migration and line-ending conversion. > According to the dependency rule, what we need is only *interface* > definition, but not *implementation*. > That means the really requirement here is to move *interface* from > ArmPkg to MdePkg, you can still keep the library implementation in > ArmPkg. (It is just a subset of this Bugzilla) That ... is an option I had not previously considered. Long-term we would still like to smash ArmLib into BaseLib, but if MdePkg maintainers would be OK with moving ArmLib.h into MdePkg... > Also, I don’t think CPUID check really matters here - since it is only > implementation. > As long as, you have interface in MdePkg, then your INF can declare that > interface. > You can still put real implementation in ArmPkg - no requirement to move. > That benefit is that you don’t need to add ArmPkg dependency in yaml. I can spin up a patch for that to get merged shortly after stable tag to give plenty of time to catch any issues that may arise from moving such a fundamental file. (These would likely be bugs, but nevertheless...) Thanks! / Leif > Thank you > Yao, Jiewen > > > -Original Message- > > From: Leif Lindholm > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:26 PM > > To: Yao, Jiewen > > Cc: Pierre Gondois ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Li, Yi1 > > ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; Jiang, Guomin > > ; Ard Biesheuvel ; Sami > > Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency > > upon ArmPkg > > > > Hi Jiewen, > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 13:41:21 +, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > > Thanks to let me know the background. > > > > > > Please be aware that there is fundamental difference between > > > dependency in INF and dependency in DSC. > > > > > > What we have previously in the ArmPkg in *DSC*. We don’t need add > > > ArmPkg in yaml. > > > However, what you try to introduce is ArmPkg in *INF*, e.g. your > > > patch v5 5/6. Then we have to add ArmPkg in yaml. > > > > > > Personally, I don’t think it is a good idea to add ArmPkg to yaml, > > > because it means that you have to pull ArmPkg when you build > > > CryptoPkg,. > > > > > > As long as what you add is industry standard, it is OK to add to > > > MdePkg, like what you did in v2. I would like to suggest this > > > approach. > > > > Ultimately, all of ArmPkg needs to migrate to MdePkg. > > See https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4121 > > But this is a BIG task. > > > > The reason I asked Pierre to add this functionality in ArmPkg rather > > than MdePkg is because that is where the existing related discovery > > code lives. (Think of it as CPUID.) > > > > For historical reasons, predating mine and Ard's involvement with > > edk2, this functionality (as well as other critical Arm functionality) > > lives in a library called ArmLib, under ArmPkg. > > For Ia32/X64, all such support lives in BaseLib, under MdePkg. > > > > This is why I referred to ArmPkg as an exclave of MdePkg in my > > original reply to Pierre. And until someone untangles this, it's not > > realistic to treat ArmPkg as anything else. > > > > And I don't think it's fair to expect Pierre to untangle this as part > > of this series. But I also don't think "Arm architectures need to > > duplicate their basic support code across multiple packages" is a > > solution. > > > > Regards, > > > > Leif > > > > > But I would like to have ARM expert to check if those are really ARM > > > standard, and also have MdePkg owner check if it is acceptable. > > > > > > Thank you > > > Yao, Jiewen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Pierre Gondois > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 8:59 PM > > > > To: Yao, Jiewen ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif > > Lindholm > > > > > > > > Cc: Li, Yi1 ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; > > > > Jiang, > > Guomin > > > > ; Ard Biesheuvel ; > > Sami > > > > Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow > > > > dependency > > > > upon ArmPkg > > > > > > > > Hello Jiewen, > > > > > > > > On 11/21/23 12:27, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > > > > Why CryptoPkg needs to depend on ArmPkg? > > > > > > > > > > Can we move content to MdePkg? > > > > > > > > The OpensslLib needs to discover the native instruction supported by the > > > > underlying platform before using them. This could also be done through > > > > the > > > > MdePkg as you suggested. The v2 is implemented that way: > > > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110953 > > > > > > > > Also, as noted by Leif, it seems there is already
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
This Bugzilla is filed in 2022-10-26. Now it is 2023-11-21. I agree with you that it is a big task. May I know what is the plan? E.g. who is working on that? When do you expect it will be done? According to the dependency rule, what we need is only *interface* definition, but not *implementation*. That means the really requirement here is to move *interface* from ArmPkg to MdePkg, you can still keep the library implementation in ArmPkg. (It is just a subset of this Bugzilla) Also, I don’t think CPUID check really matters here - since it is only implementation. As long as, you have interface in MdePkg, then your INF can declare that interface. You can still put real implementation in ArmPkg - no requirement to move. That benefit is that you don’t need to add ArmPkg dependency in yaml. Thank you Yao, Jiewen > -Original Message- > From: Leif Lindholm > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:26 PM > To: Yao, Jiewen > Cc: Pierre Gondois ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Li, Yi1 > ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; Jiang, Guomin > ; Ard Biesheuvel ; Sami > Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency > upon ArmPkg > > Hi Jiewen, > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 13:41:21 +, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > Thanks to let me know the background. > > > > Please be aware that there is fundamental difference between > > dependency in INF and dependency in DSC. > > > > What we have previously in the ArmPkg in *DSC*. We don’t need add > > ArmPkg in yaml. > > However, what you try to introduce is ArmPkg in *INF*, e.g. your > > patch v5 5/6. Then we have to add ArmPkg in yaml. > > > > Personally, I don’t think it is a good idea to add ArmPkg to yaml, > > because it means that you have to pull ArmPkg when you build > > CryptoPkg,. > > > > As long as what you add is industry standard, it is OK to add to > > MdePkg, like what you did in v2. I would like to suggest this > > approach. > > Ultimately, all of ArmPkg needs to migrate to MdePkg. > See https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4121 > But this is a BIG task. > > The reason I asked Pierre to add this functionality in ArmPkg rather > than MdePkg is because that is where the existing related discovery > code lives. (Think of it as CPUID.) > > For historical reasons, predating mine and Ard's involvement with > edk2, this functionality (as well as other critical Arm functionality) > lives in a library called ArmLib, under ArmPkg. > For Ia32/X64, all such support lives in BaseLib, under MdePkg. > > This is why I referred to ArmPkg as an exclave of MdePkg in my > original reply to Pierre. And until someone untangles this, it's not > realistic to treat ArmPkg as anything else. > > And I don't think it's fair to expect Pierre to untangle this as part > of this series. But I also don't think "Arm architectures need to > duplicate their basic support code across multiple packages" is a > solution. > > Regards, > > Leif > > > But I would like to have ARM expert to check if those are really ARM > > standard, and also have MdePkg owner check if it is acceptable. > > > > Thank you > > Yao, Jiewen > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pierre Gondois > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 8:59 PM > > > To: Yao, Jiewen ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif > Lindholm > > > > > > Cc: Li, Yi1 ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; Jiang, > Guomin > > > ; Ard Biesheuvel ; > Sami > > > Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency > > > upon ArmPkg > > > > > > Hello Jiewen, > > > > > > On 11/21/23 12:27, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > > > Why CryptoPkg needs to depend on ArmPkg? > > > > > > > > Can we move content to MdePkg? > > > > > > The OpensslLib needs to discover the native instruction supported by the > > > underlying platform before using them. This could also be done through the > > > MdePkg as you suggested. The v2 is implemented that way: > > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110953 > > > > > > Also, as noted by Leif, it seems there is already a dependency over > > > ArmPkg: > > > # git grep ArmPkg CryptoPkg/ > > > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc: ArmLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmLib/ArmBaseLib.inf > > > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc: > > > NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf > > > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc: > > > ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf > > > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc: > > > NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf > > > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc: > > > ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf > > > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc: > > > > PeiServicesTablePointerLib|ArmPkg/Library/PeiServicesTablePointerLib/PeiServic > > > esTablePointerLib.inf > > > > > > Both solutions suit me (discovering capabilities through ArmPkg or > > > MdePkg), > > > I just need to know which one is preferred, > > > > > > Regards, > > > Pierre > > > > > > > > > > >> -Original
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
Hi Jiewen,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 13:41:21 +, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Thanks to let me know the background.
>
> Please be aware that there is fundamental difference between
> dependency in INF and dependency in DSC.
>
> What we have previously in the ArmPkg in *DSC*. We don’t need add
> ArmPkg in yaml.
> However, what you try to introduce is ArmPkg in *INF*, e.g. your
> patch v5 5/6. Then we have to add ArmPkg in yaml.
>
> Personally, I don’t think it is a good idea to add ArmPkg to yaml,
> because it means that you have to pull ArmPkg when you build
> CryptoPkg,.
>
> As long as what you add is industry standard, it is OK to add to
> MdePkg, like what you did in v2. I would like to suggest this
> approach.
Ultimately, all of ArmPkg needs to migrate to MdePkg.
See https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4121
But this is a BIG task.
The reason I asked Pierre to add this functionality in ArmPkg rather
than MdePkg is because that is where the existing related discovery
code lives. (Think of it as CPUID.)
For historical reasons, predating mine and Ard's involvement with
edk2, this functionality (as well as other critical Arm functionality)
lives in a library called ArmLib, under ArmPkg.
For Ia32/X64, all such support lives in BaseLib, under MdePkg.
This is why I referred to ArmPkg as an exclave of MdePkg in my
original reply to Pierre. And until someone untangles this, it's not
realistic to treat ArmPkg as anything else.
And I don't think it's fair to expect Pierre to untangle this as part
of this series. But I also don't think "Arm architectures need to
duplicate their basic support code across multiple packages" is a
solution.
Regards,
Leif
> But I would like to have ARM expert to check if those are really ARM
> standard, and also have MdePkg owner check if it is acceptable.
>
> Thank you
> Yao, Jiewen
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pierre Gondois
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 8:59 PM
> > To: Yao, Jiewen ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm
> >
> > Cc: Li, Yi1 ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; Jiang,
> > Guomin
> > ; Ard Biesheuvel ; Sami
> > Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency
> > upon ArmPkg
> >
> > Hello Jiewen,
> >
> > On 11/21/23 12:27, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> > > Why CryptoPkg needs to depend on ArmPkg?
> > >
> > > Can we move content to MdePkg?
> >
> > The OpensslLib needs to discover the native instruction supported by the
> > underlying platform before using them. This could also be done through the
> > MdePkg as you suggested. The v2 is implemented that way:
> > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110953
> >
> > Also, as noted by Leif, it seems there is already a dependency over ArmPkg:
> > # git grep ArmPkg CryptoPkg/
> > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc: ArmLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmLib/ArmBaseLib.inf
> > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc:
> > NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf
> > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc:
> > ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf
> > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
> > NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf
> > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
> > ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf
> > CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
> > PeiServicesTablePointerLib|ArmPkg/Library/PeiServicesTablePointerLib/PeiServic
> > esTablePointerLib.inf
> >
> > Both solutions suit me (discovering capabilities through ArmPkg or MdePkg),
> > I just need to know which one is preferred,
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pierre
> >
> > >
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: Pierre Gondois
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 4:47 PM
> > >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > >> Cc: Yao, Jiewen ; Li, Yi1 ; Lu,
> > Xiaoyu1
> > >> ; Jiang, Guomin ; Leif
> > Lindholm
> > >> ; Ard Biesheuvel ;
> > >> Sami Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann
> > >>
> > >> Subject: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency
> > >> upon
> > >> ArmPkg
> > >>
> > >> Allow dependency upon ArmPkg to pass the dependency Check.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois
> > >> ---
> > >> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml | 1 +
> > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> > >> index f961d85927c0..3bbb220d3224 100644
> > >> --- a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> > >> +++ b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> > >> @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
> > >> },
> > >>
> > >> "DependencyCheck": {
> > >>
> > >> "AcceptableDependencies": [
> > >>
> > >> +"ArmPkg/ArmPkg.dec",
> > >>
> > >> "MdePkg/MdePkg.dec",
> > >>
> > >> "MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec",
> > >>
> > >> "CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dec",
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 2.25.1
> > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111549): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111549
Mute This Topic:
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
Thanks to let me know the background.
Please be aware that there is fundamental difference between dependency in INF
and dependency in DSC.
What we have previously in the ArmPkg in *DSC*. We don’t need add ArmPkg in
yaml.
However, what you try to introduce is ArmPkg in *INF*, e.g. your patch v5 5/6.
Then we have to add ArmPkg in yaml.
Personally, I don’t think it is a good idea to add ArmPkg to yaml, because it
means that you have to pull ArmPkg when you build CryptoPkg,.
As long as what you add is industry standard, it is OK to add to MdePkg, like
what you did in v2. I would like to suggest this approach.
But I would like to have ARM expert to check if those are really ARM standard,
and also have MdePkg owner check if it is acceptable.
Thank you
Yao, Jiewen
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Gondois
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 8:59 PM
> To: Yao, Jiewen ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm
>
> Cc: Li, Yi1 ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; Jiang,
> Guomin
> ; Ard Biesheuvel ; Sami
> Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency
> upon ArmPkg
>
> Hello Jiewen,
>
> On 11/21/23 12:27, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> > Why CryptoPkg needs to depend on ArmPkg?
> >
> > Can we move content to MdePkg?
>
> The OpensslLib needs to discover the native instruction supported by the
> underlying platform before using them. This could also be done through the
> MdePkg as you suggested. The v2 is implemented that way:
> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110953
>
> Also, as noted by Leif, it seems there is already a dependency over ArmPkg:
> # git grep ArmPkg CryptoPkg/
> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc: ArmLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmLib/ArmBaseLib.inf
> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc:
> NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf
> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc:
> ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf
> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
> NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf
> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
> ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf
> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
> PeiServicesTablePointerLib|ArmPkg/Library/PeiServicesTablePointerLib/PeiServic
> esTablePointerLib.inf
>
> Both solutions suit me (discovering capabilities through ArmPkg or MdePkg),
> I just need to know which one is preferred,
>
> Regards,
> Pierre
>
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Pierre Gondois
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 4:47 PM
> >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> >> Cc: Yao, Jiewen ; Li, Yi1 ; Lu,
> Xiaoyu1
> >> ; Jiang, Guomin ; Leif
> Lindholm
> >> ; Ard Biesheuvel ;
> >> Sami Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann
> >>
> >> Subject: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon
> >> ArmPkg
> >>
> >> Allow dependency upon ArmPkg to pass the dependency Check.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois
> >> ---
> >> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml | 1 +
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> >> index f961d85927c0..3bbb220d3224 100644
> >> --- a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> >> +++ b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> >> @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
> >> },
> >>
> >> "DependencyCheck": {
> >>
> >> "AcceptableDependencies": [
> >>
> >> +"ArmPkg/ArmPkg.dec",
> >>
> >> "MdePkg/MdePkg.dec",
> >>
> >> "MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec",
> >>
> >> "CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dec",
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111545): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111545
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102725178/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
Hello Jiewen,
On 11/21/23 12:27, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
Why CryptoPkg needs to depend on ArmPkg?
Can we move content to MdePkg?
The OpensslLib needs to discover the native instruction supported by the
underlying platform before using them. This could also be done through the
MdePkg as you suggested. The v2 is implemented that way:
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110953
Also, as noted by Leif, it seems there is already a dependency over ArmPkg:
# git grep ArmPkg CryptoPkg/
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc: ArmLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmLib/ArmBaseLib.inf
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc:
NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dsc:
ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
NULL|ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/CompilerIntrinsicsLib.inf
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
ArmSoftFloatLib|ArmPkg/Library/ArmSoftFloatLib/ArmSoftFloatLib.inf
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkgMbedTls.dsc:
PeiServicesTablePointerLib|ArmPkg/Library/PeiServicesTablePointerLib/PeiServicesTablePointerLib.inf
Both solutions suit me (discovering capabilities through ArmPkg or MdePkg),
I just need to know which one is preferred,
Regards,
Pierre
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Gondois
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 4:47 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Yao, Jiewen ; Li, Yi1 ; Lu, Xiaoyu1
; Jiang, Guomin ; Leif Lindholm
; Ard Biesheuvel ;
Sami Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann
Subject: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon
ArmPkg
Allow dependency upon ArmPkg to pass the dependency Check.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois
---
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
index f961d85927c0..3bbb220d3224 100644
--- a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
+++ b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
},
"DependencyCheck": {
"AcceptableDependencies": [
+"ArmPkg/ArmPkg.dec",
"MdePkg/MdePkg.dec",
"MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec",
"CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dec",
--
2.25.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111544): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111544
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102725178/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
Why CryptoPkg needs to depend on ArmPkg?
Can we move content to MdePkg?
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Gondois
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 4:47 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Yao, Jiewen ; Li, Yi1 ; Lu,
> Xiaoyu1
> ; Jiang, Guomin ; Leif Lindholm
> ; Ard Biesheuvel ;
> Sami Mujawar ; Gerd Hoffmann
>
> Subject: [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon
> ArmPkg
>
> Allow dependency upon ArmPkg to pass the dependency Check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois
> ---
> CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> index f961d85927c0..3bbb220d3224 100644
> --- a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> +++ b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
> @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
> },
>
> "DependencyCheck": {
>
> "AcceptableDependencies": [
>
> +"ArmPkg/ArmPkg.dec",
>
> "MdePkg/MdePkg.dec",
>
> "MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec",
>
> "CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dec",
>
> --
> 2.25.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111542): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111542
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102725178/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/6] CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml: Allow dependency upon ArmPkg
Allow dependency upon ArmPkg to pass the dependency Check.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois
---
CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
index f961d85927c0..3bbb220d3224 100644
--- a/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
+++ b/CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.ci.yaml
@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
},
"DependencyCheck": {
"AcceptableDependencies": [
+"ArmPkg/ArmPkg.dec",
"MdePkg/MdePkg.dec",
"MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec",
"CryptoPkg/CryptoPkg.dec",
--
2.25.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111535): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111535
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102725178/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
