From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41; helo=mail-io1-xd41.google.com; envelope-from=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com (mail-io1-xd41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA1021BADAB2 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 06:39:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id r9so3446604ioa.1 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:39:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HUtQGSOOLtEULXnsWl3Ccblk4QBAdA+Lc3Piw4APgWg=; b=jSzsmuwQyOP0tt9ZN1QjZ8SaXDEWpc4N8qXM734y84dylKnwE6ACW4nIW2TH072rOw aVPGliDANl91NKA8CdC5gVNEIz6tKpuWP7aw2MTQHjfl8Xuhpylj5mOyUcHBnlhkFtdM 9sJCrIp7IVMJeKDmGIMmKfr0WTx86QNi09llo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HUtQGSOOLtEULXnsWl3Ccblk4QBAdA+Lc3Piw4APgWg=; b=bg00FSUZCW5igIG0aECpq/+qrObrrUzrV33oPGRBAmtL/fYkqAhw/VyJyyfEWEYVU/ AFR8SE13LsrDzDSiw2U6MLapEO9mmK9YWMWySUN7YttTT1tU90u7gUsTwdkSD4c8PIos /4sRG1Vo+3HXkHnmZcrU62Akb5Uv/cyR8yOdyQvCuOxicbl+m6VJKBXRLignSR9ohZ5o VlZy19lNFzfJDVtyed6uUTvq+gopKFyvw8qkl11OhYvb1vd+yE48+W5jflgcSTBdIPZU 8/tyGhjxOf2RjVCoTmhO8xm7d4mafeFCKVoGtvTSsd+Przi8kel+z0o2/JrhG/BBM4ST xchQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbRyJ2CuJY/TX37K0nN/eFo9suTaiS6Wp9MTe7yKLE+oxl60+Q2 G6oiSvBAEwZYoEB7Pu7uiSkYuF/xEpYKDi8Dk6aNyOgl X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/V+ImvGS0QBswzoEZsdWDVDVVTWZXg81zkxNi4xGNh1RPq5XMInInObiYRHdCS8mPImidLe09zbrFMLMoA/BSY= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8415:: with SMTP id i21mr1816956ion.173.1544193581438; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:39:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181207120511.8724-1-pete@akeo.ie> In-Reply-To: From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:39:30 +0100 Message-ID: To: Pete Batard Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 edk2-platfoms 0/2] Platform/Broadcom: Add Raspberry Pi 3 support X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 14:39:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 15:33, Pete Batard wrote: > > Hi Ard, > > On 2018.12.07 14:08, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 13:13, Pete Batard wrote: > >> > >> Preamble: > >> > >> Because of its price point, ease of use and availability, the Raspberry Pi is > >> undeniably one of the most successful ARM platform in existence today. Its > >> widespread adoption therefore makes it a perfect fit as an EDK2 platform. > >> > >> However, up until now, the Raspberry Pi hasn't been supported as a bona fide > >> platform in our repository. This series of patches remedies that by introducing > >> the Raspberry Pi 3 Model B and Model B+ as a viable EDK2 platforms. > >> > > > > Thanks Pete, this is excellent work > > Well, most of it is based on your initial work for that platform... ;) > That was just the easy part :-) > >> Patch Breakdown: > >> > >> Since this is a platform introduction, we simply chose to break the commits > >> into edk2-platforms and edk2-non-osi components, as we see little point in > >> splitting the series into further subcomponents, when the structure would be > >> similar to the overall subdirectory layout and of course, one needs to apply > >> all components at once to be able to test the firmware. > >> > > > > You will have to split it up, or i won't be able to review it. > > Do you have a preference with regards to breaking it down? > > Would a 4-way ACPI / Drivers / Library / Non-OSI work for you, or do you > want to go more fine grained? > Each module as a separate patch, preferably, and a patch that adds the .dsc/.fdf at the end. > I'm not sure what will make the reviewing process easier, so if you have > guidance as to how you'd prefer to see things split, I'll take it. > Well, I want to be able to reply inline in my email client, and a 22000 line patch does not let me do that ... > > BTW I managed to build the code with GCC 6 just fine - are you sure > > the GCC 5.5 limitation still exists? > > Well, the problem we've seen isn't with building the firmware itself, > but with getting sporadic (but not systematic) Synchronous Exceptions > during early boot, when using GCC 6 or later. > > After switching to GCC 5.5, I have not seen any of these exceptions > occur, so, even if we have applied other changes that may have helped > since, I prefer erring on the side of caution for the time being... > Yikes. So no meaningful backtraces were produced that narrow it down?