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

[Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>]

All,

 From the feedback below, I'm going to assert that the current consensus 
is to keep Bcm2836.h in IndustryStandard/ and therefore, outside of 
adding an additional description with regards to its purpose, I will 
keep this patch as-is for v5.

If this is not what we want, please let me know.

Regards,

/Pete

On 2019.02.01 08:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 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
>