From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243; helo=mail-io0-x243.google.com; envelope-from=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-io0-x243.google.com (mail-io0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (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 CB3D421FCA296 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 07:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x243.google.com with SMTP id f20so6435630ioj.9 for ; Wed, 01 Nov 2017 07:34:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YujtrPA2zqTkzStWyPG/ipRY5UjpkhVoaKA8oWEqCm8=; b=S+vRjiNzBhUf7GC5+ogWlhuivgo/4RjKKVknznwVxVGMnnx67p1mdm8V88ZaYWtPer dHlS7Nz6cZ1k1KBVuGYw8hp57UOtgMsqIspZx+vWTEzsyb6IQMxTHLk4buDlV/CeBrTL oDF8j1TGde0N2rxKWSBlycArwaSoDp7TS40hg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YujtrPA2zqTkzStWyPG/ipRY5UjpkhVoaKA8oWEqCm8=; b=HLWwR7oM0Qm8a5NmCR1aB9tWOTgnlLTElnxgG1A6UcfE2S9mFhM//m1Tccz3aU86uk 9JYkww+CubTygijUWL4ghCopip0rIC65td8UC7zp90w5MQ9FL0ti8pUHWul4dWHWY1m/ p0/V2V2jQS+Yk6orgBB7vjZJkj7FbLlKVIwbGsPCm/36vs1VSHtZQxTYImAN5pYOPbNj mgLzMDL2APghakuuAz98T2pFQrX+1Lj87hR3LiShWJZz6XGqdR+MCCyu8PVKLgNjH0L6 6Y0/PWad9fDtblYhClP3rMC29SmqZ/aX7KBJGjculb9+OVl3Ptd0UDBBvfGJjFCQqPey 82yw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaViLaVtH8cnicWDscCOMVIPhWynWJs1sVFG2mlaif0MR/omjWS1 b8nsln+WQnwZKnK4oRsSUFv1Kx/gWexwJVRbVfaLNA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Q6IPZ/E/8q9/4loS0xZfTtBSYeZHFNPztCQoTkJKJa0WQRmqu7ZafCw6gwON3ZPCNxXJEVeHmtA5VbOFEsg/w= X-Received: by 10.36.233.133 with SMTP id f127mr766579ith.34.1509546845448; Wed, 01 Nov 2017 07:34:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.131.167 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 07:34:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20171101100155.sy24jrbwbmevwwdn@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20171031105218.30208-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20171031105218.30208-25-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20171101051844.3zmi53mxxznp6ixh@bivouac.eciton.net> <20171101100155.sy24jrbwbmevwwdn@bivouac.eciton.net> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:34:05 +0000 Message-ID: To: Leif Lindholm Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Graeme Gregory , Daniel Thompson , Masami Hiramatsu , =?UTF-8?B?UGlwYXQv44Oh44K/44Ov44OL44OD44OI44Od44OzIOODlOODkeODg+ODiA==?= Subject: Re: [PATCH edk2-platforms v3 24/27] Platform/Socionext: add support for Socionext Developer Box rev 0.1 X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 14:30:14 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 1 November 2017 at 10:01, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 08:31:14AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 1 November 2017 at 05:18, Leif Lindholm wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:52:15AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel >> > >> > For itself: >> > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm >> > >> > However, this patch has an ordering dependency on the arm-tf binary >> > being added to edk2-non-osi. >> >> Yeah, I wondered about that: given that the ARM-TF binary is just >> provided for convenience, but built from source that is available >> under a compatible license, it does not actually belong in >> edk2-non-osi, and I could just add it under >> Platform/Socionext/DeveloperBox/Binary instead. > > We can't have binaries under edk2-platforms. This would restrict the > ability of some people to work with that repository. Ah ok, i wasn't aware of that. > A directory in edk2-non-osi with a BSD license statement, a binary, > and a short Readme.md pointing to the sources an build instructions is > what's needed. OK > If we get the code sontributed to arm-tf upstream at some point in > future, we can drop the binary module. > Yes, but I am not holding my breath for that one, given the changes throughout.