From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=wN5Qrd+/;
 spf=none, err=SPF record not found (domain: semihalf.com, ip: 209.85.222.194, mailfrom: mw@semihalf.com)
Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com (mail-qk1-f194.google.com [209.85.222.194])
 by groups.io with SMTP; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 23:36:58 -0700
Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id r6so70916669qkc.0
        for <devel@edk2.groups.io>; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 23:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=/A5yx6msp12tnunz0boGjwD4r+6pD3elQVXKg6/Du9E=;
        b=wN5Qrd+/X1b0OUvNHQN5V3Dz7DtWKyGWpUI2T+LxgwG28ZjVFbJvbv4UMnAGXekmQ+
         q0qEFPOy+w1gcwUmaepz5jIhXEvV+NaoI9MTINdeyO5Ni+hX7GbxB/T79V5Avdv5L/J9
         CttANctAbNgab7feV/cwZ9fEjfkUtwJv4pZPuchkRP10HvqRxhefzde0xLA7lau+lzdc
         wK1qd+/3ODQnYhWZwi/dNT5avOeivj8oNd0b4/deaxQFAilnUbcQ62H7XbtOReNfTKEJ
         ipvI4Fwz/6nELMRkqLWcHvY7P55kd4omrbfnULJ9YFrvVbKUY1tcdMuN3HKsnaq1I6pO
         kzBw==
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:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=/A5yx6msp12tnunz0boGjwD4r+6pD3elQVXKg6/Du9E=;
        b=JvUEUyDLRjsLZz5eYLe+OyEaA3gc2/IJV9TgJNuX/1N3Bgx8JR0Z5EjsIEuGw3+ZMk
         DmerrdnokDg3qYMvDjpzhnazYyUM9qen/4mLUZYeZhGf6ieikrildTq3BJlX9VH1zEUp
         rAWr+cXWROK5BhBVBgqs/6aj9yoXetCpJNlEHC83e/Sc9oJ8ULHELVTJSdt+KdXLw+BU
         JogGsLveR32ysPJG/0hGUKTBD0356HSa4cDwFoQuPR/mdUIXAqy1xu9005c9GWIsGLNU
         FdknSZn6AEsJcZk/DgAz0tuWC2oqmrUmycNVDI9xR0OFbkNyWAeDhMewoZf0c7KvHAzA
         5ZKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsZt53J8nNqAqRo8BbMMRPvl2UelzQPp6UjNXtfAsd1IuSLCEZ
	uvjqR367QMNUi9H9WziKLGUhrreYQYv9pSK7yei4jQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzQRx0p2UqqIQAnCxgA9Sur5ooPHaQqlsXgrTHjYwbEWgJfeQk+ROboHCBVB+AktIQQk3t2KpmekopCLZqVVsI=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:454:: with SMTP id 81mr16412829qke.153.1565332616968;
 Thu, 08 Aug 2019 23:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1565220630-1653-1-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com>
 <20190808115153.GX25813@bivouac.eciton.net> <CAPv3WKcOu2_UMSqD4X=vfYVAueOQ=11xvttBU0Z2tu+iYdx_+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190808164822.GE25813@bivouac.eciton.net> <CAPv3WKenjMqghBHj1Qx2xjAK6C_K5wOpN=jguUZ_8ojHHV64QQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190808175324.GF25813@bivouac.eciton.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190808175324.GF25813@bivouac.eciton.net>
From: "Marcin Wojtas" <mw@semihalf.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:36:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPv3WKfwTR11Kxu6e6CfVK-3+v5c9jvFqkK-Xx3g+U_Wq_JRrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-platforms: PATCH 0/9] Marvell Octeon CN913X SoC family support
To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
Cc: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel@edk2.groups.io>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, 
	"jsd@semihalf.com" <jsd@semihalf.com>, Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@semihalf.com>, 
	Kostya Porotchkin <kostap@marvell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Leif,

czw., 8 sie 2019 o 19:53 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> napisa=C5=
=82(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 th=
e
> > > 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