Hi Ray,

OK, here I come.

[Ray] INF is a good question.

[Ray] There are two options:

[Ray]    Re-use current INF file.

[Ray]    Create a new INF under LoongArch64 folder.

[Ray] If the INF content can be shared a lot between different archs. Single INF is better.

[Ray] I am just afraid sometimes we just mixed INF contents for different archs together into one INF, which makes the INF hard to read.

Sunil,

I would like to hear your feedback regarding locations of following RiscV64 components in UefiCpuPkg:

* UefiCpuPkg/Library/BaseRiscV64CpuExceptionHandlerLib/

* UefiCpuPkg/Library/BaseRiscV64CpuTimerLib/

* UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxeRiscV64/

* UefiCpuPkg/CpuTimerDxeRiscV64/

 

I would like to move them to the following new locations accordingly:

* UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuExceptionHandlerLib/RiscV64/

* UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuTimerLib/RiscV64/

* UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe/RiscV64/

* UefiCpuPkg/CpuTimerDxe/RiscV64/

 

I want to avoid too many similar drivers in root folder, and too many libraries in Library folder.

 

Movement of the first 3 ones put the RiscV components under existing folders.

Movement of the last one creates the UefiCpuPkg/CpuTimerDxe folder, that could be potentially shared by other archs as well.

 

I raised similar comments to Chao Li who is working on LoongArch upstream.

 

The location movement follows the 2nd pattern defined by edk2 coding standard:

Driver’s location could be:

<Feature><Phase>[<CpuArch>[<Vendor>]]

  or

<Feature><Phase>[/<CpuArch>[/<Vendor>]]

 

Library’s location could be:

<Phase>[<CpuArch>[<Vendor>]]<LibraryClassName>[<Dependency>]

  or

<Phase><LibraryClassName>[<Dependency>]/[<CpuArch>[/<Vendor>]]

 

 

 

Thanks,

Ray

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#113706) | | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [rebecca@openfw.io]