From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C5741A1DFB for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q128so324619078wma.1 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PsZ4WBlUlN5158CwIAytNCU5ES5ez/9r91g9K5ajAu0=; b=c1G3YroC/ljZZG5iTby1/ptYnaBZVrfZnqvGXqMtb+lqs86wRTpFMxoVr4EwRE0kPe VQiFu+jj8tU0fXd13fsCzp+FcZ69XTCnUHAjEj8oTo+8Rx+ZrWgvD/qAEWhSBXJVfnmo aeISlDjj8kdsPkr8Ugs0AgYpEaIGv3VMFdAH4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PsZ4WBlUlN5158CwIAytNCU5ES5ez/9r91g9K5ajAu0=; b=RzrJr8BzFMQFrcO6Jtz1bs3hfl4noz909WSQJYgnvC1X7Rptb1Yyc1dEiZ+EX+FKa0 Y/tslScqAvCuKvHU9J4I+HkUPlEJOrih3ESaoo3zioE+2xEDTumNWLHNQCP+/SiezhYs KHUCpSbBSA/fnOiORAZpIYLkbFRe0N6uEhY88wJzZsuaK1Bq7JG/62KlfvGyKz4txWJR 4JizhrmCPDdqtsnn8NO/OqNyAu3mWBr3wc881dDoK+YczDmVxGO/nIVQ13Jd9XdzDpvd E+QT2RWhr/Mw15xWL7253lIf/haNtVs6PvB9KKAcoOlvw336+FAMpeWFutr9lPfhjqy6 3XgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuw6xmxL59oIB7bTQLKxzDZxxWOSmeaR/tifOJGICLIz0SmMzNDBjT+okZXFF3l9Ej3 X-Received: by 10.28.128.207 with SMTP id b198mr6901518wmd.56.1469903626622; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 17sm8850226wmf.6.2016.07.30.11.33.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 19:33:43 +0100 From: Leif Lindholm To: Tim Lewis Cc: Laszlo Ersek , "michael.d.kinney@intel.com" , Jordan Justen , "edk2-devel@ml01.01.org" , Andrew Fish Message-ID: <20160730183343.GP31760@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1467901459-18840-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20160729164433.GO31760@bivouac.eciton.net> <7236196A5DF6C040855A6D96F556A53F3D487A@msmail.insydesw.com.tw> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7236196A5DF6C040855A6D96F556A53F3D487A@msmail.insydesw.com.tw> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file, dealing with .depex X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 18:33:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi Tim, Thanks for the warning, and investigation. Does this mean that you think we should ban the inclusion of .depex files in EDK2, including future platform trees? (If not, this patch is still needed for git to work predictably with these files.) Regards, Leif On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:12:49PM +0000, Tim Lewis wrote: > It appears that this file is not actually used. It is only > referenced in the [Rule.Common.UEFI_DRIVER.NATIVE_BINARY] rule in > PlatformPkg.fdf. A little further research shows that an alternate > method was used for the actual GOP binary (see below). A grep of the > entire tree shows that no one uses this rule NATIVE_BINARY. So it > looks like it can just be cut out. > > BTW, the downside of the method used for the binary version of the > GOP driver, is that those drivers cannot use PCDs, since the PCD > database is created based on references in the .inf. GOP works > because it is pure UEFI and (therefore) doesn't use PCDs. > > Tim > > FILE DRIVER = FF0C8745-3270-4439-B74F-3E45F8C77064 { > SECTION DXE_DEPEX_EXP = {gPlatformGOPPolicyGuid} > SECTION PE32 = Vlv2MiscBinariesPkg/GOP/7.2.1011/RELEASE_VS2008x86/$(DXE_ARCHITECTURE)/IntelGopDriver.efi > SECTION UI = "IntelGopDriver" > } > > -----Original Message----- > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:45 AM > To: Laszlo Ersek > Cc: michael.d.kinney@intel.com; Jordan Justen ; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org; Andrew Fish > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file, dealing with .depex > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:03:13PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 07/07/16 16:24, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > Git tends to see .depex files as text, causing hideous patches being > > > generated (and breaking PatchCheck.py). > > > > > > Add a .gitattributes file instructing git to treat them as binary. > > > > > > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 > > > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm > > > --- > > > .gitattributes | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > create mode 100644 .gitattributes > > > > > > diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..2d8a45b > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/.gitattributes > > > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > > > +*.depex binary > > > > > > > What generates .depex files? I've never seen any. > > > > Also, unless you add .depex files with "git add" to the set of tracked > > files, no patches / diffs should cover them. What am I missing? :) > > > > ... Hm, after > > > > $ find . -iname "*.depex" > > > > I see .depex files in Build/ (which should be ignored altogether), and > > > > ./Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex > > > > Why does that file exist in the tree? Let me see... git log says nothing relevant (the file dates back to commit 3cbfba02fef9, "Upload BSD-licensed Vlv2TbltDevicePkg and Vlv2DeviceRefCodePkg to"). > > > > Grepping the tree for the filename itself leads to: > > > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/PlatformPkg.fdf: DXE_DEPEX DXE_DEPEX Optional $(WORKSPACE)/$(PLATFORM_PACKAGE)/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/PlatformPkgGcc.fdf: DXE_DEPEX DXE_DEPEX Optional $(WORKSPACE)/$(PLATFORM_PACKAGE)/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex > > > > Do these rules exist to override the DEPEX sections of binary-only modules? If so: that's horrible. > > > > Anyway, given that edk2 contains at least one .depex file, and your patch is correct according to : > > > > Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek > > Thanks! > > I had hoped for comments from someone else on cc, since we don't have any Maintainers.txt entry for the top level directory :) > > But if I don't hear anything before Monday, I'll push it then. > > Regards, > > Leif > > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel