Re: [RFC] migration of OpenPlatformPkg to tianocore

[Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>]

Hi Jiewen,

Apologies for ridicilously slow response - I caught a bad cold and am
only now getting back on track with this.

Many thanks for having a look, and your comments.

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 02:03:43PM +0000, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Some comments for the build failure.
> 
> I think we might have different understanding on PACKAGES_PATH.
> 
> We are using below structure:
> =========================
> Platform\
>         Intel\
>                 PlatformAPkg
>                 PlatformBPkg
> Silicon\
>         Intel\
>                 SiliconAPkg
>                 SiliconBPkg
> 
> We set PACKAGES_PATH to "Platform\Intel:Silicon\Intel".
> As such Build.DSC can include PlatformAPkg/DriverA/DriverA.inf.
> =========================
> 
> 
> My suggestion for your case is below: We can use
> =========================
> Platform\
>         Arm\
>                 JunoPkg
>                 VExpressPkg

Yes, so this is probably a good point.
I tried to model this repository on Mike's proposal for updated
directory structure, and is was not entirely clear to me whether the
*Pkg naming convention was intended to be retained at lower levels
when it disappeared at the top level.

/* BEGIN sidetrack */
My understanding from before was that the "package" convention stemmed
from a situation where each top-level directory was treated as an "IP
silo". Since that aspect disappeared with the proposed layout changes,
and the edk2-* repositories can now be seen much more (if not
entirely) as cohesive structures, I had simply assumed the Pkg suffix
convention would disappear. I do not actually have a strong opinion on
the matter.
/* END sidetrack */

In the specific cases of JunoPkg and VExpressPkg, these are not
technically "packages" in this tree, since their .dec files are still
in edk2. However, these should move, and if the Pkg naming convention
remains, they should indeed be renamed.

> 
> We set PACKAGES_PATH to "Platform\Arm".
> ArmJunoPkg.dsc can just use "VExpressPkg\ArmVExpress.dsc.inc" and "JunoPkg\Library\JunoPciHostBridgeLib\ JunoPciHostBridgeLib.dsc"
> =========================
> 
> The benefit of adding "Pkg" is that people can have a clear picture on where the path starts from. :)

OK, so I think we have a situation where I have misunderstood the
intended purpose of the PACKAGES_PATH mechanism. But, I would like to
discuss the possibility of extending it to cover the use-case that I
thought it provided - or potentially adding new functionality to
provide the same.

Since my goal is to have many platforms (for scope, let's call it
hundreds) in the edk2-platforms master branch, needing to specify for
each platform all directories that contains packages used by that
platform becomes quite tedious. Especially when that stretches across
multiple packages in multiple repositories.

As an example, take the SoftIron 1000 platform. If the PACKAGES_PATH
needs to contain all directories holding packages used outside of
edk2, I would need to add:
- edk2-non-osi/Platform/SoftIron/
- edk2-non-osi/Silicon/AMD/Styx/
- edk2-platforms/Platform/SoftIron/
- edk2-platforms/Silicon/AMD/Styx/

And for each other platform, I would need to specify a similar (unique
for that platform) PACKAGES_PATH.
And I can see more complex splits than that appearing.

Now, if everything I want to build resides across the master branch of
edk2, the master branch of edk2-platforms and the master branch of
edk2-non-osi, then I just need a way for the build command to search
in all three repositories. At that point, the only platform-specific
information I need in order to build is the path to the .dsc.

So, what I was hoping for was a way to simply extend the path
resolution in .dsc/.fdf files to multiple repositories. I had hoped
PACKAGES_PATH could do this, but since this was never its design goal
I understand why it does not. Do you think the PACKAGES_PATH
functionality could/should be extended to support this, or do I need a
new feature (WORKSPACES_PATH?)?

Best Regards,

Leif

> Thank you
> Yao Jiewen
> 
> 
> 
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Yao, Jiewen
> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 9:46 PM
> To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Richardson, Brian <brian.richardson@intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>; Chenhui Sun <chenhui.sun@linaro.org>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>; Alan Ott <alan@softiron.co.uk>; Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin@linaro.org>; Duran, Leo <leo.duran@amd.com>; haojian.zhuang@linaro.org; Linaro UEFI <linaro-uefi@lists.linaro.org>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Heyi Guo <heyi.guo@linaro.org>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] migration of OpenPlatformPkg to tianocore
> 
> HI Leif
> It is great that you are adding more platform to edk2-platforms.
> 
> We (Intel) also have plan to add more boards there. In general, we are very close on having silicon and platform folder.
> 
> I have a quick look. One minor suggestions here:
> Take Arm folder as example. (I assume Juno is one package, and VExpress is the other package.)
> Can we name Juno to be JunoPkg, and VExpress to be VExpressPkg ?
> We do not add "Pkg" to a folder. And we usually add "Pkg" suffix to a package.
> 
> In general, I think it is a very good start.
> I may review the content in more detail and provide more feedback.
> 
> 
> Thank you
> Yao Jiewen
> 
> 
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm
> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 6:56 AM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
> Cc: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin@linaro.org<mailto:ryan.harkin@linaro.org>>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org<mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>>; Chenhui Sun <chenhui.sun@linaro.org<mailto:chenhui.sun@linaro.org>>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com<mailto:afish@apple.com>>; Alan Ott <alan@softiron.co.uk<mailto:alan@softiron.co.uk>>; Richardson, Brian <brian.richardson@intel.com<mailto:brian.richardson@intel.com>>; Duran, Leo <leo.duran@amd.com<mailto:leo.duran@amd.com>>; haojian.zhuang@linaro.org<mailto:haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>; Linaro UEFI <linaro-uefi@lists.linaro.org<mailto:linaro-uefi@lists.linaro.org>>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>>; Heyi Guo <heyi.guo@linaro.org<mailto:heyi.guo@linaro.org>>
> Subject: [edk2] [RFC] migration of OpenPlatformPkg to tianocore
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As some of you may be aware, I have been working around the lack of
> a clear upstreaming strategy for platform support by keeping such code
> in a dedicated repository I set up at Linaro for that purpose:
> https://git.linaro.org/uefi/OpenPlatformPkg.git
> 
> During discussions at the last Seattle plugfest we finally agreed on
> the (theoretical) details of how to use the edk2-platforms repository.
> After that I promised to migrate OpenPlatformPkg across to the
> edk2-platforms and edk2-non-osi structure, with the explicit end goal
> from my side that this should become the master branch for each.
> 
> And now, before the release of HURD 1.0, I have.
> 
> Current limitations (that I can remember):
> - A few references to OpenPlatformPkg remain, in ways that do not
>   appear to break any of the platform builds. Most likely this affects
>   dead code, but in case it's been accidentally orphaned, I thought it
>   best to
> - I have simply nuked all references to Ebl (used in _addition_ to the
>   UEFI shell, which was never the intent) and the efi-toolkit
>   ramdisk driver.
> - The Marvell Yukon driver that I sent out for review last week has
>   not migrated anywhere, and so has been temporarily disabled
>   Mike suggested I should
> - USB support on the LeMaker Cello board depends on the patch
>   "OptionRomPkg: add firmware loader driver for Renesas PD72020x"
>   sent out by Ard on 18th of April.
> - I have dropped some of the binary-only modules from OpenPlatformPkg,
>   and contacted the platform owners with requests for modifications.
> - The git history is quite messy and will be cleaned up, but I wanted
>   to keep the transition quite visible in the RFC.
> - I haven't filled anything into the Maintainers.txt files - I am in
>   favour of moving to a fully machine-readable format with wildcards
>   as Laszlo has proposed in the past, and think this would be an
>   excellent point to have that discussion (which can be had separately
>   for edk2-platforms and edk2-non-osi from edk2).
> - Few of the platforms complete the FV generation stage, and I've
>   inserted a couple of silly hacks to get them to get as far as they
>   do. I think that either I am missing some points of how
>   PACKAGES_PATH is intended to work, or I'm simply hitting corner
>   cases no one has come across before. I could really use some help
>   debugging these issues. (examples below).
> 
> The below depends on the 3-part series I sent out today for importing
> DwEmmcDxe and EfiTimeBaseLib from OpenPlatformPkg. But apart from
> that, I have uploaded branches called devel-OpenPlatformPkg to:
> 
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/tree/devel-OpenPlatformPkg
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-non-osi/tree/devel-OpenPlatformPkg
> 
> These branches _will_ be rebased occasionally until they get to a
> point where they can move out of devel- stage (and hopefully onto
> master).
> 
> 
> Build issue description
> =======================
> So, one of the hopefully easier ones is what I'm seeing when trying to
> build the Juno platform:
> 
> $ PACKAGES_PATH="/work/maint/edk2-platforms:/work/maint/edk2-non-osi" GCC5_AARCH64_PREFIX=aarch64-linux-gnu- build -a AARCH64 -t GCC5 -p Platform/ARM/Juno/ArmJuno.dsc -b RELEASE -n 9
> 
> results in:
> 
> <<<
> GenFds.py...
>  : error F003: Output file for RAW section could not be found for
>  Platform/ARM/Juno/AcpiTables/AcpiTables.inf
> 
> ###
> 
> 
> build.py...
>  : error 7000: Failed to execute command
>          GenFds -f /work/maint/edk2-platforms/Platform/ARM/Juno/ArmJuno.fdf --conf=/work/maint/edk2/Conf -o /work/maint/edk2/Build/ArmJuno/RELEASE_GCC5 -t GCC5 -b RELEASE -p /work/maint/edk2-platforms/Platform/ARM/Juno/ArmJuno.dsc -a AARCH64 -D "EFI_SOURCE=/work/maint/edk2/EdkCompatibilityPkg" -D "EDK_SOURCE=/work/maint/edk2/EdkCompatibilityPkg" -D "TOOL_CHAIN_TAG=GCC5" -D "TOOLCHAIN=GCC5" -D "TARGET=RELEASE" -D "FAMILY=GCC" -D "WORKSPACE=/work/maint/edk2" -D "EDK_TOOLS_PATH=/work/maint/edk2/BaseTools" -D "ARCH=AARCH64" -D "ECP_SOURCE=/work/maint/edk2/EdkCompatibilityPkg"
>  [/work/maint/edk2]
> 
> - Failed -
> >>>
> 
> And when I copy and paste the above command manually, I get:
> 
> <<<
> GenFds.py...
> /work/maint/edk2-platforms/Platform/ARM/Juno/ArmJuno.dsc(34): error
> 000E: File/directory not found in workspace
>         /work/maint/edk2-platforms/Platform/ARM/Juno/Platform/ARM/VExpress/ArmVExpress.dsc.inc
> /work/maint/edk2/Platform/ARM/VExpress/ArmVExpress.dsc.inc
> >>>
> 
> So, to an uniformed observer, it seems the portion
> !include Platform/ARM/VExpress/ArmVExpress.dsc.inc
> from ArmJuno.dsc
> gets expanded to "directory ArmJuno.dsc is in" + "Platform/ARM/VExpress/ArmVExpress.dsc.inc"
> whereas I was hoping for it to try to find a match for
> "Platform/ARM/VExpress/ArmVExpress.dsc.inc" along PACKAGES_PATH (and
> find one in edk2-platforms).
> 
> I also have the impression that something similar is happening in
> ArmJuno.fdf for the line
>   INF RuleOverride=ACPITABLE Platform/ARM/Juno/AcpiTables/AcpiTables.inf
> generating the error message from the original build command.
> 
> But I'm not quite sure how to debug these issues (short of fully
> figuring out the innards of MultipleWorkspace.py, MetaFileParser.py
> and a few others).
> Any ideas of where to look, or even what is going on?
> Would these cases be expected to work?
> 
> /
>     Leif
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org%3cmailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>>
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel