Date   

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Nate DeSimone
 

Hey Bret,

On 10/5/20, 12:35 PM, Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com> wrote:

Perhaps this is the time we get EdkRepo and Stuart to join forces and
become the one-true-repo-management solution for EDK.
I'm not opposed to that idea, but it sounds like a totally different RFC 😊. We also need to be cognizant that there are many people downstream from TianoCore that don't use any repo management tooling.

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
 

I think that to support anything larger that proofs of concept – in other words, to support the actual platforms that we WANT to consume this trusted, common code – we already have to support recursive submodules.

Our team HIGHLY recommends that platforms submodule edk2 rather than forking it, which means (for most) that they are already invested in repo management tooling of one form or another.

Perhaps this is the time we get EdkRepo and Stuart to join forces and become the one-true-repo-management solution for EDK.

Or we could all move to Rust and start complaining about Cargo immediately. 😉

- Bret

From: Nate DeSimone via groups.io<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone=intel.com@groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:02 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: Leif Lindholm<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>; Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Ard Biesheuvel<mailto:ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Kirkendall, Garrett<mailto:garrett.kirkendall@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas<mailto:thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; thomas.abraham@arm.com<mailto:thomas.abraham@arm.com>; Frank.Orr@dell.com<mailto:Frank.Orr@dell.com>; Jim Dailey<mailto:jim.dailey@dell.com>; Abner Chang<mailto:abner.chang@hpe.com>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW)<mailto:sunnywang@hpe.com>; Daniel Schaefer<mailto:daniel.schaefer@hpe.com>; Liming Gao<mailto:gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Tim Lewis<mailto:tim.lewis@insyde.com>; Kevin D Davis<mailto:kevin.davis@insyde.com>; Felix Polyudov<mailto:felixp@ami.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Oram, Isaac W<mailto:isaac.w.oram@intel.com>; Ni, Ray<mailto:ray.ni@intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Hey Sean,

On 10/2/20, 8:37 PM, Sean <spbrogan@outlook.com> wrote:
I could imagine a path where edk2-platforms starts using submodules (or
something with similar properties) and then pulls in the "new"
MinPlatform repo.
IMHO I'm starting to get annoyed at the number of submodules in edk2 at this point. It's getting to the point that we are in danger of needing recursive submodule clones, which are a huge PITA for anyone not using either stuart or EdkRepo. I'd rather not get to that point.

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Leif Lindholm
 

On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 20:46:50 +0000, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:
Hey Hot,

On 10/1/20, 9:20 PM, Tian, Hot <hot.tian@intel.com> wrote:

Why not move to edk2 repo?
Edk2 would be a good place as well.
If it is being used by any external consumers, then yes edk2 makes
perfect sense.

It might still make sense to start prototyping that usage in a
vendor-neutral section of edk2-platforms.

/
Leif


Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Nate DeSimone
 

Hey Sean,

On 10/2/20, 8:37 PM, Sean <spbrogan@outlook.com> wrote:
I could imagine a path where edk2-platforms starts using submodules (or
something with similar properties) and then pulls in the "new"
MinPlatform repo.
IMHO I'm starting to get annoyed at the number of submodules in edk2 at this point. It's getting to the point that we are in danger of needing recursive submodule clones, which are a huge PITA for anyone not using either stuart or EdkRepo. I'd rather not get to that point.

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Nate DeSimone
 

Hey Hot,

On 10/1/20, 9:20 PM, Tian, Hot <hot.tian@intel.com> wrote:

Why not move to edk2 repo?
Edk2 would be a good place as well.

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Sean
 

Nate,

I would actually propose you go further. In Project Mu we consume MinPlatform as its own repo. This is because it has its own lifetime and spans multiple product generations and hopefully someday multiple architectures/silicon providers. By mixing it in with all the platform code of edk2-platforms it is harder to leverage in other projects.

https://github.com/microsoft/mu_common_intel_min_platform

I could imagine a path where edk2-platforms starts using submodules (or something with similar properties) and then pulls in the "new" MinPlatform repo. Then as code in the current package gets cleaned up and generalized for the firmware ecosystem it could be moved to the new MinPlatform repo.

Another thread with open edk2-platform questions: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65544


Thanks
Sean

On 9/30/2020 4:17 PM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
Hi Everyone,
This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do think that it would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Platform/Intel folder and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform really isn't Intel specific, it's just "middleware" that is intended to make it easier and faster to build EDK II based firmware. We have always intended MinPlatform to be vendor neutral, and it would be great to see MinPlatform based implementations for non-Intel silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work with us on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.
To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel to edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg. It might also make sense to move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to edk2-platforms/Platform as well since those are all useful for building MinPlatform based firmware, but I could also see that being something for another time. Let me know what you think!
Thanks,
Nate


Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Hot Tian
 

Why not move to edk2 repo?

Thanks,
Hot

-----Original Message-----
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 7:26
To: Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
Cc: rfc@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Kirkendall, Garrett <garrett.kirkendall@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; thomas.abraham@arm.com; Frank.Orr@dell.com; Jim Dailey <jim.dailey@dell.com>; Abner Chang <abner.chang@hpe.com>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang@hpe.com>; Daniel Schaefer <daniel.schaefer@hpe.com>; Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Tim Lewis <tim.lewis@insyde.com>; Kevin@Insyde <kevin.davis@insyde.com>; Felix Polyudov <felixp@ami.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Oram, Isaac W <isaac.w.oram@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 23:20:01 +0000, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:
One thing I think is needed for this to move out of Platform/Intel
would be a ReadMe.rst describing the intended real-world use.
Some of this lives in Platform/Intel/Readme.md today.
Could we start with a set moving this text into a separate file
under MinPlatformPkg and rework that into something that stands on its own?
Yeah agreed, given that the feedback on this RFC has been pretty
positive thus far, I'm planning on making a patch series for this.
I'll make these changes part of said patch series.
Sounds good.

If I was to bikeshed, I'd probably suggest
Platform/TianoCore/MinPlatformPkg. Oops, guess I did.
Seems a little superfluous to me... isn't edk2-platforms part of
TianoCore by definition? 😊
It is. It's just the pattern for everything else in edk2-platforms (apart from OptionRomPkg, which was just transplanted from edk2) exists in the form of <section>/$VENDOR/. Platform/MinPlatformPkg would be the only bare package in Platform/.

I think we should see this as a separate step, regardless.

I do think we should be able to do better on sharing some of this
platform image tooling cross-architecture (even moreso now Risc-V is
involved), but I would prefer for us to spend the effort of
identifying the intersections upfront before we start uploading
tools to places where they look generic and may confuse people.

Maybe we should raise this part as a BZ?
Yup, sounds like good next steps to me. I've filed the BZ:
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2992
Top man.

Best Regards,

Leif


Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Nate DeSimone
 

Hey Laszlo,

On 9/30/20, 11:54 PM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

Since I've been CC'd -- the MinPlatformPkg move seems logical to me.
Regarding the tools, I guess it depends on how many Intel-specific quirks
they contain. I guess they could be moved too after a potential refactoring /
splitting.
With regard to the tool refactoring, Leif had the same feedback and I completely agree with both of you. I have filed a BZ to track the tool refactoring as a separate item: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2992

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Leif Lindholm
 

On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 23:20:01 +0000, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:
One thing I think is needed for this to move out of Platform/Intel would be a
ReadMe.rst describing the intended real-world use.
Some of this lives in Platform/Intel/Readme.md today.
Could we start with a set moving this text into a separate file under
MinPlatformPkg and rework that into something that stands on its own?
Yeah agreed, given that the feedback on this RFC has been pretty
positive thus far, I'm planning on making a patch series for
this. I'll make these changes part of said patch series.
Sounds good.

If I was to bikeshed, I'd probably suggest
Platform/TianoCore/MinPlatformPkg. Oops, guess I did.
Seems a little superfluous to me... isn't edk2-platforms part of TianoCore by definition? 😊
It is. It's just the pattern for everything else in edk2-platforms
(apart from OptionRomPkg, which was just transplanted from edk2)
exists in the form of <section>/$VENDOR/. Platform/MinPlatformPkg
would be the only bare package in Platform/.

I think we should see this as a separate step, regardless.

I do think we should be able to do better on sharing some of this platform
image tooling cross-architecture (even moreso now Risc-V is involved), but I
would prefer for us to spend the effort of identifying the intersections
upfront before we start uploading tools to places where they look generic
and may confuse people.

Maybe we should raise this part as a BZ?
Yup, sounds like good next steps to me. I've filed the BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2992
Top man.

Best Regards,

Leif


Re: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Nate DeSimone
 

Hey Leif,

On 10/1/20, 4:52 AM, " Leif Lindholm" <leif@nuviainc.com> wrote:

Very positive to this on the whole.
Happy to hear!

I have only been following MinPlatformPkg peripherally - at the time it was
merged, I did not have the bandwidth to look into it and help make it cross-
architecture from the start, so I mostly refrained from comment.

One thing I think is needed for this to move out of Platform/Intel would be a
ReadMe.rst describing the intended real-world use.
Some of this lives in Platform/Intel/Readme.md today.
Could we start with a set moving this text into a separate file under
MinPlatformPkg and rework that into something that stands on its own?
Yeah agreed, given that the feedback on this RFC has been pretty positive thus far, I'm planning on making a patch series for this. I'll make these changes part of said patch series.

If I was to bikeshed, I'd probably suggest
Platform/TianoCore/MinPlatformPkg. Oops, guess I did.
Seems a little superfluous to me... isn't edk2-platforms part of TianoCore by definition? 😊

I think we should see this as a separate step, regardless.

I do think we should be able to do better on sharing some of this platform
image tooling cross-architecture (even moreso now Risc-V is involved), but I
would prefer for us to spend the effort of identifying the intersections
upfront before we start uploading tools to places where they look generic
and may confuse people.

Maybe we should raise this part as a BZ?
Yup, sounds like good next steps to me. I've filed the BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2992

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

christian.walter@...
 

Hi Nate,

totally agree with you.

Best,

Chris

On 10/1/20 9:43 AM, Wim Vervoorn wrote:
Hi Nate,

I agree this sounds like a good plan. The MinPlatform should be as generic as possible and suitable for all architectures.

In fact it is similar to the UEFIPayload package wich is also standalone.

Best Regards,
Wim Vervoorn

Eltan B.V.
Ambachtstraat 23
5481 SM Schijndel
The Netherlands

T : +31-(0)73-594 46 64
E : wvervoorn@eltan.com
W : http://www.eltan.com


"This message contains confidential information. Unless you are the intended recipient of this message, any use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone +31-(0)73-5944664 or reply email, and immediately delete this message and all copies."


-----Original Message-----
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io [mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Nate DeSimone
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 1:17 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Kirkendall, Garrett <garrett.kirkendall@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; thomas.abraham@arm.com; Frank.Orr@dell.com; Jim Dailey <jim.dailey@dell.com>; Abner Chang <abner.chang@hpe.com>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang@hpe.com>; Daniel Schaefer <daniel.schaefer@hpe.com>; Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Tim Lewis <tim.lewis@insyde.com>; Kevin@Insyde <kevin.davis@insyde.com>; Felix Polyudov <felixp@ami.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Oram, Isaac W <isaac.w.oram@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>
Subject: [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Hi Everyone,

This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do think that it would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Platform/Intel folder and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform really isn't Intel specific, it's just "middleware" that is intended to make it easier and faster to build EDK II based firmware. We have always intended MinPlatform to be vendor neutral, and it would be great to see MinPlatform based implementations for non-Intel silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work with us on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.

To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel to edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg. It might also make sense to move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to edk2-platforms/Platform as well since those are all useful for building MinPlatform based firmware, but I could also see that being something for another time. Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Nate













--
*Christian Walter*
*Head of Firmware Development / Cyber Security *



9elements GmbH, Kortumstraße 19-21, 44787 Bochum, Germany
Email:  christian.walter@9elements.com
Phone:  _+49 234 68 94 188 <tel:+492346894188>_
Mobile:  _+49 176 70845047 <tel:+4917670845047>_

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bochum
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bochum, HRB 17519
Geschäftsführung: Sebastian Deutsch, Eray Basar

Datenschutzhinweise nach Art. 13 DSGVO <https://9elements.com/privacy>


Re: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Wim Vervoorn <wvervoorn@...>
 

Hi Nate,

I agree this sounds like a good plan. The MinPlatform should be as generic as possible and suitable for all architectures.

In fact it is similar to the UEFIPayload package wich is also standalone.

Best Regards,
Wim Vervoorn

Eltan B.V.
Ambachtstraat 23
5481 SM Schijndel
The Netherlands

T : +31-(0)73-594 46 64
E : wvervoorn@eltan.com
W : http://www.eltan.com


"This message contains confidential information. Unless you are the intended recipient of this message, any use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone +31-(0)73-5944664 or reply email, and immediately delete this message and all copies."

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io [mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Nate DeSimone
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 1:17 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Kirkendall, Garrett <garrett.kirkendall@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; thomas.abraham@arm.com; Frank.Orr@dell.com; Jim Dailey <jim.dailey@dell.com>; Abner Chang <abner.chang@hpe.com>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang@hpe.com>; Daniel Schaefer <daniel.schaefer@hpe.com>; Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Tim Lewis <tim.lewis@insyde.com>; Kevin@Insyde <kevin.davis@insyde.com>; Felix Polyudov <felixp@ami.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Oram, Isaac W <isaac.w.oram@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>
Subject: [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Hi Everyone,

This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do think that it would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Platform/Intel folder and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform really isn't Intel specific, it's just "middleware" that is intended to make it easier and faster to build EDK II based firmware. We have always intended MinPlatform to be vendor neutral, and it would be great to see MinPlatform based implementations for non-Intel silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work with us on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.

To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel to edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg. It might also make sense to move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to edk2-platforms/Platform as well since those are all useful for building MinPlatform based firmware, but I could also see that being something for another time. Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [RFC] Request for new git repository for EdkRepo

Bjorge, Erik C
 

I am fine with a new repo. This also supports a good workflow to get a tool that then lets you pull full platforms. In theory you would only ever really need to clone a single repo manually (assuming reasonable manifest support).

Are you also looking at creating a separate manifest repo as well or just creating a manifest branch in the new EdkRepo repository?

Thanks,
-Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:56 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Desimone, Ashley E <ashley.e.desimone@intel.com>; Bjorge, Erik C <erik.c.bjorge@intel.com>
Subject: [RFC] Request for new git repository for EdkRepo

Hi Everyone,

Given that EdkRepo has existed in the project for over a year now (in edk2-staging) I think it is time to get out of staging. I have considered multiple possible landing zones:

1. edk2
2. edk2-pytool-library
3. A new repository

Edk2 does not seem like a good location as EdkRepo isn't strictly necessary to build EDK II, and I think all of us would prefer that edk2 not become a dumping ground. I have talked with the other maintainers of edk2-pytool-library and they would prefer that EdkRepo not enter that repository because EdkRepo does not have a robust set of unit tests yet and they don't want their test coverage metrics to decline. Therefore, the best choice seems to be a new repository. As always if anyone has comments they are welcome!

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Leif Lindholm
 

Hi Nate,

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 23:17:15 +0000, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:
This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do
think that it would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the
Platform/Intel folder and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform
really isn't Intel specific, it's just "middleware" that is intended
to make it easier and faster to build EDK II based firmware. We have
always intended MinPlatform to be vendor neutral, and it would be
great to see MinPlatform based implementations for non-Intel
silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work with
us on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.
Very positive to this on the whole.

I have only been following MinPlatformPkg peripherally - at the time
it was merged, I did not have the bandwidth to look into it and help
make it cross-architecture from the start, so I mostly refrained from
comment.

One thing I think is needed for this to move out of Platform/Intel
would be a ReadMe.rst describing the intended real-world use.
Some of this lives in Platform/Intel/Readme.md today.
Could we start with a set moving this text into a separate file under
MinPlatformPkg and rework that into something that stands on its own?

To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of
edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel to
edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg.
If I was to bikeshed, I'd probably suggest
Platform/TianoCore/MinPlatformPkg. Oops, guess I did.

It might also make sense to
move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and
edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to
edk2-platforms/Platform as well since those are all useful for
building MinPlatform based firmware, but I could also see that being
something for another time. Let me know what you think!
I think we should see this as a separate step, regardless.

I do think we should be able to do better on sharing some of this
platform image tooling cross-architecture (even moreso now Risc-V is
involved), but I would prefer for us to spend the effort of
identifying the intersections upfront before we start uploading tools
to places where they look generic and may confuse people.

Maybe we should raise this part as a BZ?

Best Regards,

Leif


Re: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Kirkendall, Garrett
 

We have recently been evaluating the merits of MinPlatformPkg. We would welcome a MinPlatformPkg that is more accessible.

GARRETT KIRKENDALL
SMTS Firmware Engineer
7171 Southwest Parkway, Austin, TX 78735 USA
AMD   facebook  |  amd.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 6:17 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>;
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Kirkendall, Garrett
<Garrett.Kirkendall@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas
<Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>; thomas.abraham@arm.com;
Frank.Orr@dell.com; Jim Dailey <jim.dailey@dell.com>; Abner Chang
<abner.chang@hpe.com>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang@hpe.com>;
Daniel Schaefer <daniel.schaefer@hpe.com>; Liming Gao
<gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Tim Lewis <tim.lewis@insyde.com>;
Kevin@Insyde <kevin.davis@insyde.com>; Felix Polyudov
<felixp@ami.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Oram,
Isaac W <isaac.w.oram@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>
Subject: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

[CAUTION: External Email]

Hi Everyone,

This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do think that it
would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Platform/Intel folder
and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform really isn't Intel specific, it's
just "middleware" that is intended to make it easier and faster to build EDK II
based firmware. We have always intended MinPlatform to be vendor
neutral, and it would be great to see MinPlatform based implementations for
non-Intel silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work
with us on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.

To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of edk2-
platforms/Platform/Intel to edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg. It
might also make sense to move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and
edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to edk2-platforms/Platform as
well since those are all useful for building MinPlatform based firmware, but I
could also see that being something for another time. Let me know what you
think!

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Laszlo Ersek
 

On 10/01/20 01:17, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:
Hi Everyone,

This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do think that it would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Platform/Intel folder and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform really isn't Intel specific, it's just "middleware" that is intended to make it easier and faster to build EDK II based firmware. We have always intended MinPlatform to be vendor neutral, and it would be great to see MinPlatform based implementations for non-Intel silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work with us on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.

To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel to edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg. It might also make sense to move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to edk2-platforms/Platform as well since those are all useful for building MinPlatform based firmware, but I could also see that being something for another time. Let me know what you think!
Since I've been CC'd -- the MinPlatformPkg move seems logical to me.
Regarding the tools, I guess it depends on how many Intel-specific
quirks they contain. I guess they could be moved too after a potential
refactoring / splitting.

Laszlo


Re: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Abner Chang
 

That makes sense to move out MinPlatformPkg to under the vendor neutral folder if it is not Intel specific. On RISC-V, we have Platforms/RISC-V/PlatformPkg and the vendor neutral folder of RISC-V platform (e.g. Platforms/SiFive) which could leverage the driver/lib provided by RISC-V PlatformPkg.

-----Original Message-----
From: Desimone, Nathaniel L [mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 7:17 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>;
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Kirkendall, Garrett
<garrett.kirkendall@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas
<thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; thomas.abraham@arm.com;
Frank.Orr@dell.com; Jim Dailey <jim.dailey@dell.com>; Chang, Abner (HPS
SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang@hpe.com>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW)
<sunnywang@hpe.com>; Schaefer, Daniel <daniel.schaefer@hpe.com>;
Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Tim Lewis
<tim.lewis@insyde.com>; Kevin@Insyde <kevin.davis@insyde.com>; Felix
Polyudov <felixp@ami.com>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Oram, Isaac W <isaac.w.oram@intel.com>;
Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>
Subject: [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Hi Everyone,

This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do think that it
would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Platform/Intel folder
and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform really isn't Intel specific, it's
just "middleware" that is intended to make it easier and faster to build EDK II
based firmware. We have always intended MinPlatform to be vendor neutral,
and it would be great to see MinPlatform based implementations for non-
Intel silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work with us
on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.

To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of edk2-
platforms/Platform/Intel to edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg. It
might also make sense to move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and
edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to edk2-platforms/Platform as
well since those are all useful for building MinPlatform based firmware, but I
could also see that being something for another time. Let me know what you
think!

Thanks,
Nate


Re: [RFC] Request for new git repository for EdkRepo

Nate DeSimone
 

Hi Erik,

A separate manifest repository would probably be a good idea. The manifest repo is used for a lot of EdkRepo's operations so having a smaller repo dedicated repo could be beneficial from a performance standpoint.

Thanks,
Nate

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorge, Erik C <erik.c.bjorge@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 3:29 PM
To: Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Desimone, Ashley E <ashley.e.desimone@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC] Request for new git repository for EdkRepo

I am fine with a new repo. This also supports a good workflow to get a tool that then lets you pull full platforms. In theory you would only ever really need to clone a single repo manually (assuming reasonable manifest support).

Are you also looking at creating a separate manifest repo as well or just creating a manifest branch in the new EdkRepo repository?

Thanks,
-Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:56 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Desimone, Ashley E <ashley.e.desimone@intel.com>; Bjorge, Erik C <erik.c.bjorge@intel.com>
Subject: [RFC] Request for new git repository for EdkRepo

Hi Everyone,

Given that EdkRepo has existed in the project for over a year now (in edk2-staging) I think it is time to get out of staging. I have considered multiple possible landing zones:

1. edk2
2. edk2-pytool-library
3. A new repository

Edk2 does not seem like a good location as EdkRepo isn't strictly necessary to build EDK II, and I think all of us would prefer that edk2 not become a dumping ground. I have talked with the other maintainers of edk2-pytool-library and they would prefer that EdkRepo not enter that repository because EdkRepo does not have a robust set of unit tests yet and they don't want their test coverage metrics to decline. Therefore, the best choice seems to be a new repository. As always if anyone has comments they are welcome!

Thanks,
Nate


[RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Nate DeSimone
 

Hi Everyone,

This has come up informally a couple of times already, but I do think that it would be beneficial to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Platform/Intel folder and into a vendor neutral folder. MinPlatform really isn't Intel specific, it's just "middleware" that is intended to make it easier and faster to build EDK II based firmware. We have always intended MinPlatform to be vendor neutral, and it would be great to see MinPlatform based implementations for non-Intel silicon. Anyone working with EDK II should feel welcome to work with us on MinPlatform, regardless of the SoC in use.

To that end, I propose that we move MinPlatformPkg out of edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel to edk2-platforms/Platform/MinPlatformPkg. It might also make sense to move edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/Tools and edk2-platforms/Platform/Intel/build_bios.py to edk2-platforms/Platform as well since those are all useful for building MinPlatform based firmware, but I could also see that being something for another time. Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Nate


[RFC] Request for new git repository for EdkRepo

Nate DeSimone
 

Hi Everyone,

Given that EdkRepo has existed in the project for over a year now (in edk2-staging) I think it is time to get out of staging. I have considered multiple possible landing zones:

1. edk2
2. edk2-pytool-library
3. A new repository

Edk2 does not seem like a good location as EdkRepo isn't strictly necessary to build EDK II, and I think all of us would prefer that edk2 not become a dumping ground. I have talked with the other maintainers of edk2-pytool-library and they would prefer that EdkRepo not enter that repository because EdkRepo does not have a robust set of unit tests yet and they don't want their test coverage metrics to decline. Therefore, the best choice seems to be a new repository. As always if anyone has comments they are welcome!

Thanks,
Nate

321 - 340 of 747