On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:54 PM Kirkendall, Garrett via groups.io
<garrett.kirkendall=amd.com@groups.io> wrote:

> [Public]
>
>
>
> Isaac,
>
>
>
> One of the obvious hindrances to acceptance is the Firmware Volumes with
> Fsp in the name.  They would be obvious to an Intel FSP solution, but they
> are not obvious to any other solution.  Would it be possible to give them a
> more generic descriptive name that would apply to any type of solution?
>
>
>
> *GARRETT KIRKENDALL*
>
>
> *----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/AMD> |  Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/AMD> |  amd.com <http://www.amd.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Words to live by: "Slow is Smooth.  Smooth is Fast."
>
>
>

Garrett,

Surely you've got bigger issues with the MinPlatform than naming right? I
don't see how this can ever be a hindrance, particularly considering all
you've got in the final firmware images are GUIDs.

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/master/Platform/Qemu/QemuOpenBoardPkg/QemuOpenBoardPkg.fdf
is an example of a virtual platform for QEMU in MinPlatform fashion.
Combine that and
some other Intel platform and you probably have a decent idea of how an AMD
platform would look like (mentioned QOBP because of the lack of FSP and
pre-mem CAR, although AIUI AGESA does expose an FSP interface).

There are no problems by leaving firmware volumes you don't need/don't make
sense (like e.g Fsp-T) empty.

-- 
Pedro