Re: [PATCH v4 edk2-platforms 01/23] Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm282x: Add interrupt driver

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 01/31/19 22:01, Andrew Fish wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 31, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> +Andrew, Laszlo, Mike.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 06:19:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:24, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:26:33PM +0000, Pete Batard wrote:
>>>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Bcm283x.dec                           |  23 ++
>>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Drivers/InterruptDxe/InterruptDxe.c   | 367 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Drivers/InterruptDxe/InterruptDxe.inf |  48 +++
>>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Include/IndustryStandard/Bcm2836.h    |  72 ++++
>>>>
>>>> Another generic comment: "IndustryStandard" is something like ACPI,
>>>> SMBIOS, PCI, USB, MMC, ... (also including SoC/platform-specific
>>>> additions to the same).
>>>
>>> Is that your interpretation? Or is this documented somewhere?
>>
>> Only in asmuch as it is a clearly descriptive name.
>>
>>> I could live with Chipset/, and I'm open to other suggestions, but the
>>> Library vs Protocol vs IndustryStandard distinction is very useful
>>> imo.
>>
>> It is useful because it is descriptive.
>> Pretending that an SoC hardware description or a platform description
>> header is an "Industry Standard" is disingenuous.
>>
>>>> I would be more comfortable with SoC-specific and Platform-specific
>>>> include files living directly in Include/.
>>>
>>> No, don't drop headers in Include/ please. The namespacing is one of
>>> the things EDK2 actually gets right (assuming you define the paths
>>> correctly in the package .dec file), and I'd hate to start dumping
>>> headers at the root level because we cannot make up our minds what to
>>> call the enclosing folder.
>>
>> Mike, Andrew - what is your take on this?
>> Is there a formal definition of not only what goes in
>> IndustryStandard, but where chipset and platform headers should live
>> in the namespace?
>>
> 
> Leif,
> 
> I kind of think IndustryStandard as things that have a public spec

I think the same. I think any device / interface headers can go under
Include/IndustryStandard as long as the interface was explicitly
designed for external consumption, and is promised to be stable.

I realize some packages have Include/Register too... I find that a bit
redundant.

Thanks
Laszlo