Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 1/1] BaseTools/Conf: Remove C-Code-File.AcpiTable rule

["PierreGondois" <pierre.gondois@arm.com>]

Hello Laszlo,
I couldn't find any trace of a ".act" file being created/deleted/modified in edk2 or edk2-platforms. I guess the whole f0373115cc9c commit could be reverted.
f0373115cc9c commit was authored by "lgao4". Maybe Liming will know more about it.

Regards,
Pierre

-----Original Message-----
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> 
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:01 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Cc: bob.c.feng@intel.com; liming.gao@intel.com; nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 1/1] BaseTools/Conf: Remove C-Code-File.AcpiTable rule

On 06/25/20 10:19, PierreGondois wrote:
> From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> 
> When trying to build a module with the MODULE_TYPE set to:
>   MODULE_TYPE = AcpiTable
> 
> the build fails with the following error:
> [ModulePath].inf(-1): error 3001: MODULE_TYPE AcpiTable is not 
> supported for EDK II, valid values are:
>  BASE SEC PEI_CORE PEIM DXE_CORE DXE_DRIVER DXE_RUNTIME_DRIVER  
> DXE_SAL_DRIVER DXE_SMM_DRIVER UEFI_DRIVER UEFI_APPLICATION  
> USER_DEFINED HOST_APPLICATION SMM_CORE MM_STANDALONE  
> MM_CORE_STANDALONE
> 
> Indeed, the "SUP_MODULE_LIST" variable available in 
> edk2/BaseTools/Source/Python/Common/DataType.py does not include any 
> "AcpiTable".
> The "C-Code-File.AcpiTable" rule described in 
> edk2/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template might be outdated.
> Plus there is no mention of "AcpiTable" module in the INF 
> specification.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> ---
> 
> The changes can be seen at: 
> https://github.com/PierreARM/edk2/commits/831_Remove_C_AcpiTable_build
> _rule_v1
> 
> Notes:
>     v1:
>      - Remove AcpiTable rule. [Pierre]
> 
>  BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template | 20 --------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template 
> b/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template
> index 
> 0822b681fcd9f61c6508e6f93ffc31fa70fd7059..32984eb3f33fd9d110da54975fc9
> 0325addb8ecc 100755
> --- a/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template
> +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template
> @@ -437,26 +437,6 @@
>          "$(ASL)" $(ASL_FLAGS) $(ASL_OUTFLAGS)${dst} $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.iiii
>          -AmlToHex $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.aml
>  
> -[C-Code-File.AcpiTable]
> -    <InputFile>
> -        ?.c
> -
> -    <OutputFile>
> -        $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.acpi
> -
> -    <ExtraDependency>
> -        $(MAKE_FILE)
> -
> -    <Command.MSFT, Command.INTEL>
> -        "$(ASLCC)" $(DEPS_FLAGS) /Fo$(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.obj $(ASLCC_FLAGS) $(DEPS_FLAGS) $(INC) ${src}
> -        "$(ASLDLINK)" /OUT:$(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.dll $(ASLDLINK_FLAGS) $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.obj
> -        "$(GENFW)" -o ${dst} -c $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.dll $(GENFW_FLAGS)
> -
> -    <Command.GCC>
> -        "$(ASLCC)" $(DEPS_FLAGS) -c -o $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.obj $(CC_FLAGS) $(ASLCC_FLAGS) $(DEPS_FLAGS) $(INC) ${src}
> -        "$(ASLDLINK)" -o $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.dll $(ASLDLINK_FLAGS) $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.obj
> -        "$(GENFW)" -o ${dst} -c $(OUTPUT_DIR)(+)${s_dir}(+)${s_base}.dll $(GENFW_FLAGS)
> -
>  [Acpi-Table-Code-File]
>      <InputFile>
>          ?.aslc, ?.act
> 

Should we remove "?.act" from under "Acpi-Table-Code-File", too?

Because, if you run "git-blame" on the file, the code being removed comes originally from commit f0373115cc9c ("Add the special build rule for AcpiTable C Source file.", 2008-09-01). And that commit added "?.act" under "Acpi-Table-Code-File".

(I don't know if the "?.act" addition in that commit was due to bad patch structuring (i.e., if it was unrelated to AcpiTable modules, and should have been a separate patch), or somehow indeed related to AcpiTable modules. The commit doesn't explain.)

Thanks
Laszlo