Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-19 Thread Paolo Bonzini
gt; To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Ryan Harkin >> <ryan.har...@linaro.org> >> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org <edk2-de...@ml01.01.org> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories >> >> >> >>

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-19 Thread Kinney, Michael D
1.org] On Behalf Of Paolo > Bonzini > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:21 AM > To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Ryan Harkin > <ryan.har...@linaro.org> > Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org <edk2-de...@ml01.01.org> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposa

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-19 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 19/05/2016 18:21, Kinney, Michael D wrote: > This is one of the reasons I wanted to have both a "Silicon" and a "Driver" > top level directory. > > We can change names, but the idea is that the "Silicon" one would contains > CPU/Chipset/SoC content that is usually contains the drivers to

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-19 Thread Kinney, Michael D
.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org > de...@ml01.01.org> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories > > > > On 19/05/2016 18:03, Ryan Harkin wrote: > > > IA32X64 is not a great name, but neither is Intel. X86 suggests 32-bit > >

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-19 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 19/05/2016 18:03, Ryan Harkin wrote: > > IA32X64 is not a great name, but neither is Intel. X86 suggests 32-bit > > only. > > I prefer the idea of separating by vendor. One vendor may have > multiple architectures, for example. That's exactly why I want to separate by architecture. :)

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-19 Thread Ryan Harkin
On 19 May 2016 at 14:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 18/05/2016 01:57, Kinney, Michael D wrote: >> Core >> CorebootModulePkg >> CorebootPayloadPkg > > I think that anything with a .fdf file should be under Platform. > CorebootPayloadPkg is the only outlier in your

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-19 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 18/05/2016 01:57, Kinney, Michael D wrote: > Core > CorebootModulePkg > CorebootPayloadPkg I think that anything with a .fdf file should be under Platform. CorebootPayloadPkg is the only outlier in your proposal. > Emulated > DuetPkg > EmulatorPkg > Nt32Pkg >

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-18 Thread Yao, Jiewen
Hi Mike I think the high level hierarchy is good. I have some questions below: 1) CorebootModulePkg/CorebootPayloadPkg: I am not sure if it is proper to put these to "Core" dir. I think it seems payload for Coreboot platform only. Can we put to "Platform" dir, like OVMF? 2) EmbeddedPkg: I am

Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to organize packages into directories

2016-05-18 Thread Zeng, Star
Mike, Could we put PerformancePkg into the Deprecated directory? As PerformancePkg\Library\TscTimerLib could be replaced by PcAtChipsetPkg\Library\AcpiTimerLib and ShellPkg\Library\UefiDpLib has the same functionality with PerformancePkg\Dp_App. The valid concern is that user may want a