On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 09:58 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Ray,
> 
> On 06/12/19 04:13, Wu, Hao A wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ni, Ray
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 10:04 AM
> > > To: Wu, Hao A; David Woodhouse; Justen, Jordan L; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > Cc: Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Phillips, D Scott
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/6] Ovmf: Drop IntelFramework[Module]Pkg
> > > dependency
> > > 
> > > Hao,
> > > Will the CSM duplication cause any code change that may impact CSM
> > > functionality?
> > 
> > Hello Ray,
> > 
> > I think there should be no functional impact for the duplication.
> > There is no change to the .C/.H files.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Hao Wu
> > 
> > > If no, how about firstly duplicate them first?
> > > 
> > > David,
> > > Will this approach work for you?
> 
> It will not work for me.
> 
> Here's the problem:
> 
> - I'm not comfortable approving the duplication (or move) under OvmfPkg,
> until David ACKs the patch -- the first patch in the series -- that
> spells out his reviewership for the CSM modules,

I'll certainly ack that.

> - I believe David is not comfortable ACKing that patch until he can get
> the CSM build to work again.

I'm OK with it as long as the submitter has done their own testing and
confirms that it works at least as well as it did before. It does get
quite a long way into 16-bit code and then does somewhere in the CSM
itself, after a few legacy BIOS calls.