Re: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and Standalone Drivers with One MM Core

["Sami Mujawar" <sami.mujawar@arm.com>]

Hi Siyuan,

I can see the following points:
- current code organisation is such that the traditional MM and standalone MM are clearly separated.
- traditional MM is planned to be deprecated.
- some architectures only support standalone MM (e.g. Arm platforms)
- life span of MM Migration use-case code is until traditional MM is deprecated.

Considering the above, would it be possible to have an option 3 where the MM Migration use-case code is placed in a separate location/package,  such that existing platforms do not need changing and are not regressed?
I understand the concern with duplicating the MM implementations, however I think it would be good to maintain the demarcation that exists between traditional MM and standalone MM. Features that are beneficial to standalone MM can certainly be added to StandaloneMmPkg.

Regards,

Sami Mujawar

-----Original Message-----
From: Fu, Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Sent: 10 October 2020 02:41 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redhat.com; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io; Laszlo Ersek (lersek@redhat.com) <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <Ard.Biesheuvel@arm.com>; Sami Mujawar <Sami.Mujawar@arm.com>; Supreeth Venkatesh <Supreeth.Venkatesh@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and Standalone Drivers with One MM Core

Hi, Jiewen/Laszlo

Thanks for your comments on this.

Hi, Ard/Sami/Supreeth

Since ARM based platforms are currently the major user of the MM Core in StandaloneMmPkg, I would like to hear you idea about this change. Do you have any concern about adding MM Traditional driver support to the Standalone MM Core?

Best Regards
Siyuan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: 2020年10月9日 21:08
> To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io;
> devel@edk2.groups.io; Fu, Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
> Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>;
> ard.biesheuvel@arm.com; sami.mujawar@arm.com;
> supreeth.venkatesh@arm.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and
> Standalone Drivers with One MM Core
>
> On 10/09/20 14:23, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> > IMHO, StandaloneMm (in StandaloneMmPkg) should be the long term
> direction to replace the traditional MM (in MdeModulePkg).
> >
> > If we want to do some enhancement, I prefer #2 to update the one in
> StandaloneMmPkg.
> > Once we retire transitional MM, we can delete the PiSmmCore in
> MdeModulePkg.
>
> This is a good idea -- when we think we are ready to retire PiSmmCore in
> MdeModulePkg, because we think that StandaloneMmPkg can fully replace
> it, platforms can evaluate the latter (hopefully with some simple DSC /
> FDF modifications), and report back whether they see regressions or
> whether StandaloneMmPkg behaves as a drop-in replacement indeed, for
> PiSmmCore in MdeModulePkg.
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
> >
> > If we choose #1, the EDKII will have two standaloneMm Cores (the one in
> StandaloneMmPkg and the one in MdeModulePkg), which may bring lots of
> confusing and we may need merge them later.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Yao Jiewen
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> >> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 7:56 PM
> >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Fu, Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>;
> >> rfc@edk2.groups.io
> >> Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>;
> >> ard.biesheuvel@arm.com; sami.mujawar@arm.com; Yao, Jiewen
> >> <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; supreeth.venkatesh@arm.com
> >> Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and
> >> Standalone Drivers with One MM Core
> >>
> >> On 10/09/20 07:22, Siyuan, Fu wrote:
> >>> Hi, All
> >>>
> >>> This email is to collect feedback about making one common EDK2 MM Core
> >> driver to support both MM Traditional drivers and MM Standalone drivers.
> >>>
> >>> We know that PI Spec defines two types of MM-related drivers: MM
> >> Traditional Drivers and MM Standalone Drivers. There are two MM Core
> >> modules exist in EDK2 but each of them can only support one single type of
> MM
> >> drivers:
> >>>     - PiSmmCore in MdeModulePkg supports MM Traditional driver dispatch.
> It
> >> doesn't have FV parsing logic and relies on EFI Firmware Volume2 Protocol
> for
> >> driver discovery. It doesn't support MM Standalone driver.
> >>>     - StandaloneMmCore in StandaloneMmPkg supports MM Standalone
> driver
> >> dispatch. It has FV parsing and decompress logic but only limited to one single
> >> firmware volume (called standalone BFV in code). It doesn't support MM
> >> Traditional driver.
> >>>
> >>> However, a platform may want to have both of the two types of MM drivers
> >> coexist in its firmware, for example, when it tries to transfer from Traditional
> >> MM mode to Standalone MM mode, in a stage by stage manner. However,
> it's
> >> not possible with current EDK2 MM Core because of above limitations. Thus,
> >> here we propose to have a common MM Core module in EDK2, which could:
> >>>     - Support both MM Traditional drivers and MM Standalone drivers.
> >>>     - Use shared Depex evaluation when dispatching all the MM drivers.
> >>>     - Use a shared MM System Table when invoking all the MM drivers' entry
> >> point, which mean handle/protocol database is shared.
> >>>     - Have self-contained FV parsing and driver discovery capability.
> >>>
> >>> We realized there could be 2 possible options to make this happen:
> >>>     - Option 1: Update the MdeModulePkg Core. In this approach, we will
> need
> >> to add the FV decompress, driver discovery and MM Standalone driver
> >> dispatcher to the PiSmmCore module in MdeModulePkg.
> >>>     - Option 2: Update the StandaloneMmPkg Core. Which means adding MM
> >> Traditional dispatcher and multiple FV support to existing standalone Core in
> >> StandaloneMmPkg. Will also need to add PEI/DXE IPL module to invoke the
> >> Standalone MM Core and pass UEFI System Table to it.
> >>>
> >>> The option 1 will have less impact to those platforms which only use MM
> >> Standalone drivers currently, because those platforms can stay with the
> >> unchanged Standalone MM Core. While option 2 looks more like a clean
> >> solution because it could support all the cases (Traditional MM only,
> Standalone
> >> MM only, and mix-used platform). So I'd like to hear the community's
> feedback
> >> about which option is preferred, and let me know if you have any concerns
> with
> >> this change. Thanks!
> >>
> >> Which method is the least risky with regard to regressions, in your opinion?
> >>
> >> I tend to prefer #2. Either option is neutral for ArmVirtPkg at the
> >> moment, and option#2 is safer for OvmfPkg (no risk of regression). Thus
> >> far, there has not been any need (that I know of) for OVMF to support
> >> standalone MM drivers.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, if we wanted to add Management Mode support to ArmVirtPkg
> >> at some (later) point, I believe (?) we'd just use StandaloneMmPkg right
> >> from the start.
> >>
> >> I.e., from my perspective, mixing MM module types, for some kind of
> >> transition for a platform from one MM mode to another, is not
> >> immediately useful; so my goal is to minimize the risk of regressions.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Laszlo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> 
>

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.