Re: [edk2-platforms: PATCH 0/9] Marvell Octeon CN913X SoC family support

["Marcin Wojtas" <mw@semihalf.com>]

Hi Leif,

czw., 8 sie 2019 o 19:53 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
> > > On a higher level, I confess to not being entirely convinced about the
> > > triplicate .dsc/.dsc.inc/.fdf.inc setup. (Of the three, the .dsc.inc
> > > is the one I object the least to.)
> > > For the .dscs, I understand the desire to separate the build
> > > directories, but could this be achieved with -D build flags instead?
> > > Certainly the differences in .fdf.inc could be handled via
> > > conditional statements determined in a single .dsc.
> > >
> > > If (and this is a possibility) the 3 different .dscs is the right way
> > > forward, I still think everything other than the [defines] section
> > > should be kept in a common .dsc.inc.
> > >
> >
> > I will try the -D option. How about:
> > - single .dsc / .fdf.inc
> > - triple .dsc.inc (they overlap in really minimal way and show pretty
> > good the differences between 3 variants)
> > ?
>
> Yeah, that sounds good to me. Agreed on the .dsc.inc - you could
> possibly slightly decrease duplication if keeping them as one file,
> but it would be more difficult to read and review changes.
>

Well, when you look into .dsc.inc details, you should notice that
there is no repeated PCD (having the same value) in neither of 3
files. In case we decided to merge them into, we would end up with
ifdefs, so I'm not convinced the readability would increase...

Best regards,
Marcin