From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::330; helo=mail-wm1-x330.google.com; envelope-from=leif.lindholm@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (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 C4B112118EF5D for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:49:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id s10-v6so2940666wmc.5 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 10:49:15 -0800 (PST) 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=fCJ1IWNLo+QWPY9Ww5engVAzgtFa13EodhwRRki72D8=; b=JFNtUqL7fF0dqSMYmB8NzzPOp39uHigQ1NpZynq0bwRCjcgk6VSZM8pKya3fXONQqR e/7zl/2i2bqGRgT9eB0yKgwnVTWYGpOCAOZcMfw9NTtMsSav6vEls3ng/olEiaV7OCON o+CBPpC6W2EDD3LIhUth9YnwNdrBsv7hSjm8k= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=fCJ1IWNLo+QWPY9Ww5engVAzgtFa13EodhwRRki72D8=; b=KCbKcVLoyzoarqhBTBo5xC5clo1YYcog+Sze+c/leM/EvHyIWygm9hJNxxlW/qUwpF R+lxSaI3s3yBJg0Bgf9+d6C5f87mC165a5Ls0/Edsq0Dqhf7Dc68Gm+zETBMYcC0AvfO /wTR8zw16KMXsv7fqQsUDQLt2K2P+2eUaKHU9q3fKJ5D9FPYdeolIILHIJXkZKm8/XXH d/GZhxto/DS1a11NQXYXZbCEspDwlvvHviyUsVS8T0+S4pvPAAPp8Puj1bqETIEnjlP+ /6TrZVKxJO1A47FskzqGsCf6CBCO4N3FSbr+87JcIVXisOgbIx3j4iSEd8sCx09r6BgQ qWDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLN7YNHcpP7VlUkpKQq44uQgtZMSWHmCybNjRsolrzrNLWDUh4x WAoSnOEnF8666qAUjFAyJBRD+A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cWFQQ5evOHrur24Nds3rNosSMXevkjoeqbInH4Q9Jp6r2Hm6g/cVXW5kbM/LiqZMwvxUzz3A== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e088:: with SMTP id x130-v6mr443222wmg.6.1541789353972; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 10:49:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t198-v6sm3267770wmd.9.2018.11.09.10.49.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 09 Nov 2018 10:49:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:49:11 +0000 From: Leif Lindholm To: Jeff Brasen Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Ard Biesheuvel , Grish Pathak , Sami Mujawar Message-ID: <20181109184911.ykwoto4ewk7boeei@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <6dbe50db1293266db7588630fc97328276e82843.1541699412.git.jbrasen@nvidia.com> <20181109140951.jcworswoffwot2q4@bivouac.eciton.net> <20181109183018.asma3ynwkr7dww57@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ArmPkg/ArmScmiDxe: Add clock enable function X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:49:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 06:35:02PM +0000, Jeff Brasen wrote: > > 1. Add new ArmScmiClock2Protocol.h + guid > > 2. Add new guid and document that you have to use that guid for the enable function > > 3. Add new guid under old name and have the old guid installed on > > the handle as well, this would keep things fairly clean but > > would have a guid that wouldn't map to a protocol in header > > form. > > 4. Just change the protocol without changing the guid, this has > > the reverse issue of the change I made (except errors can > > result in a crash) (don't really like this option) > > I think my (quite puritan) preference would be > 5. Add another guid, describe it in the same .h file. > > For example, see (among several others) > EFI_FIRMWARE_VOLUME_BLOCK_PROTOCOL/EFI_FIRMWARE_VOLUME_BLOCK2_PROTOCOL > in MdePkg/Include/Protocol/FirmwareVolumeBlock.h. > (This may be what you mean by 2?) > > [JB] Yes this was what I was thinking with #2 OK, cool, then we're on the same page. > It's a bit of a sledgehammer, but it is a well known and common > pattern in edk2. > > However, if we do this, I would prefer to take the opportunity to add > any new functions not already implemented at the same time. Do you > know if we have other missing calls? > > Now, this _isn't_ a protocol described by any external specification, > so we don't need to be quite as rigid as for public interfaces. > Basically, there shouldn't be (non-debug/non-devtool) dynamic > applications making use of this protocol in the first place. (If we > think there should be, we need to document this GUID and protocol in a > spec somewhere.) > So in reality, I think 4 would also be a valid thing to do. > > But I do want feedback from the original author. > > [JB] Sounds good, I think Girish is out of office until 11/21 Yeah. I'd take feedback from Sami as well :) But both me and Ard will be at plumbers next week, and we are expecting the stable tag to happen then as well - so that is basically lost anyway. Regards, Leif