From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.1164.1588196843077076002 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:47:23 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: arm.com, ip: 217.140.110.172, mailfrom: ard.biesheuvel@arm.com) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40D01063; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.81] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3778C3F68F; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] BaseTools,EmbeddedPkg,Maintainers.txt: Obsolete some drivers To: Leif Lindholm Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, Andrew Fish , Bob Feng , Laszlo Ersek , Liming Gao , Michael D Kinney References: <20200429163616.5951-1-leif@nuviainc.com> <10151f16-f903-6fcf-92c8-f28f269eab53@arm.com> <20200429195343.GI21486@vanye> <464be692-53ef-8cac-ec69-2f87cc6f59cb@arm.com> <20200429214531.GN21486@vanye> From: "Ard Biesheuvel" Message-ID: <83cf98dc-ec56-2712-2835-e9b4c99049c9@arm.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 23:47:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200429214531.GN21486@vanye> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/29/20 11:45 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 22:04:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>>> I am mostly concerned about the use of MmcDxe in new platforms. The other >>>> bits I'm not too worried about, and I think it would be fine to move those >>>> into Platform/ARM/VExpressPkg in edk2-platforms, instead of hoping that >>>> someone will turn up and turn them into driver model drivers. >>> >>> We could, although I would prefer not adding code to edk2-platforms >>> that would not be accepted was it submitted as a new contribution. >>> The SATA controller, I would ideally re-review and merge properly. >>> >>> If we do include the other drivers in platform-specific directories, I >>> want them to come with ... strongly worded readmes. >>> >> >> Right. >> >> Should we have some format for that? A way to log shortcomings along with >> the code? > > Thinking a bit more on this, maybe what we should do is add a template > to each file's top comment block. Draft proposal: > > * > * WARNING: > * This driver fails to follow the UEFI driver model without a good > * reason, and only remains in the tree because it is still used by > * a small number of platforms. It will removed when no longer used. > * New platforms should not use it, and no one should use this as > * reference code for developing new drivers. > * > Works for me