1. Edk2 | Rfc
  2. Topics

[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@...>
Cc: rfc@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...>; Kirkendall, Garrett <garrett.kirkendall@...>; Lendacky, Thomas <thomas.lendacky@...>; thomas.abraham@...; Frank.Orr@...; Jim Dailey <jim.dailey@...>; Abner Chang <abner.chang@...>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang@...>; Daniel Schaefer <daniel.schaefer@...>; Liming Gao <gaoliming@...>; Tim Lewis <tim.lewis@...>; Kevin@Insyde <kevin.davis@...>; Felix Polyudov <felixp@...>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; Oram, Isaac W <isaac.w.oram@...>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@...>
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

Nate DeSimone
 

Hey Hot,

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

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

Thanks,
Nate

Leif Lindholm <leif@...>
 

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@...> 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

Nate DeSimone
 

Hey Leif,

On 10/4/20, 3:00 PM, Leif Lindholm <leif@...> wrote:

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@...> 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.
It is actually seeing a pretty large amount of external consumption right now. To my knowledge, every IBV and most OEMs depend on MinPlatformPkg for Tiger Lake UEFI firmware implementations. Given the interest we have seen here for non-Intel MinPlatform firmware, I believe that edk2 is likely the best place for it.

Thanks,
Nate

1 - 4 of 4