From: "Wu, Hao A" <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
"devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, "Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>,
"Justen, Jordan L" <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: Reviewer for the possible duplicated CSM components in OvmfPkg
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 05:59:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B80AF82E9BFB8E4FBD8C89DA810C6A093C8D4E7B@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <005afbebcbda0108aa69c9c41f2e3352a63cacbf.camel@infradead.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@infradead.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:40 PM
> To: Wu, Hao A; devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek; Ni, Ray; Justen, Jordan L; Ard Biesheuvel
> Subject: Re: Reviewer for the possible duplicated CSM components in OvmfPkg
>
> On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 05:32 +0000, Wu, Hao A wrote:
> > My thought on this is the CSM components in the framework packages are
> > stable for a period of time. So my guess is that the issue is not directly
> > related to these components.
>
> Right. I went back to a SeaBIOS and OVMF from the time I last had this
> working, and then I tripped over lots of toolchain issues. I ended up
> having to git-bisect for various different issues at once.
>
> ISTR I eventually got to the point where I could build the "last known
> good" versions with the minimal set of fixes... and still they didn't
> actually work. I need to revisit that.
>
> > Also, if it turns out that there are some missing components left
> > uncopied, we are able to get them back (from the repo history) and put
> > them into OvmfPkg then. I can help on that.
> >
> > Does this sound good to you?
>
> That would be great. Thanks. I don't think there's anything really
> *missing*. We do get into SeaBIOS as a CSM but SeaBIOS itself then
> crashes somehow, in a hard-to-debug way.
>
> In fact I did all this before we had proper SMM support in OVMF and
> SeaBIOS, and I should probably revisit it completely. Originally I took
> the simple approach where SeaBIOS takes over the hardware completely,
> and returning from CSM to UEFI on a boot failure was not really going
> to work. But if I move to what I understand is the "normal" CSM model
> of invoking UEFI services through SMM instead of taking full control,
> things might be a little saner.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
I will update my proposed series by adding a leading patch to update the
Maintainers.txt file with:
OvmfPkg
...
R: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
(CSM modules)
Also, I will probably held the v2 of the series after the
edk2-stable201905, will let you know if there is any additional help needed.
Thanks again for the help.
Best Regards,
Hao Wu
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-20 5:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-20 5:08 Reviewer for the possible duplicated CSM components in OvmfPkg Wu, Hao A
2019-05-20 5:11 ` David Woodhouse
2019-05-20 5:32 ` Wu, Hao A
2019-05-20 5:40 ` David Woodhouse
2019-05-20 5:59 ` Wu, Hao A [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=B80AF82E9BFB8E4FBD8C89DA810C6A093C8D4E7B@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox