Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib

["Duran, Leo" <leo.duran@amd.com>]

Please pardon the churn...

It just occurred to me that perhaps renaming the library may justify its standalone existence... How about if I call it: X86IoFifoLib?
(since the intended consumers are x86 packages)

Leo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duran, Leo
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 8:31 AM
> To: 'Gao, Liming' <liming.gao@intel.com>; 'Justen, Jordan L'
> <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' <lersek@redhat.com>; 'edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org' <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
> Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; 'Fan, Jeff'
> <jeff.fan@intel.com>; 'Kinney, Michael D' <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>;
> 'Ma, Maurice' <maurice.ma@intel.com>; 'Agyeman, Prince'
> <prince.agyeman@intel.com>; 'Ni, Ruiyu' <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; 'Steele,
> Kelly' <kelly.steele@intel.com>; 'Wei, David' <david.wei@intel.com>; 'Guo,
> Mang' <mang.guo@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib
> 
> BTW,
> I also you should have mentioned that the proposed IoFifoLib is intended to
> support just x86 (IA32 + X64)... Whereas IoLIb is universal.
> Leo.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Duran, Leo
> > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 8:23 AM
> > To: 'Gao, Liming' <liming.gao@intel.com>; Justen, Jordan L
> > <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' <lersek@redhat.com>; edk2-
> > devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff
> > <jeff.fan@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>;
> > Ma, Maurice <maurice.ma@intel.com>; Agyeman, Prince
> > <prince.agyeman@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Steele,
> > Kelly <kelly.steele@intel.com>; Wei, David <david.wei@intel.com>; Guo,
> > Mang <mang.guo@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gao, Liming [mailto:liming.gao@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 9:11 PM
> > > To: Duran, Leo <leo.duran@amd.com>; Justen, Jordan L
> > > <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' <lersek@redhat.com>;
> > > edk2- devel@lists.01.org
> > > Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff
> > > <jeff.fan@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> > > <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice <maurice.ma@intel.com>;
> > > Agyeman, Prince <prince.agyeman@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu
> > > <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly <kelly.steele@intel.com>; Wei,
> > > David <david.wei@intel.com>; Guo, Mang <mang.guo@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib
> > >
> > > Leo:
> > >   IoLib Library class is designed from the functionality, not code
> > > implementation. So, many IO operations are included in this library
> > > class. If developers want to use IO API, they only need to check
> > > IoLib library
> > class.
> > > After add new APIs, we need to update all IoLib library instances to
> > > implement them. And, if any library API implementation has the
> > > different version, the full library instance will have to be copied
> > > to another instance. I know your concern is to duplicate the library
> > > implementation. But, I think this is the separate topic to optimize
> > > the library implementation and reuse the same source file. Other
> > > library instances may have the same issue. So, I suggest you submit
> > > bugzilla for this optimization request. We will figure out the
> > > solution and
> > review it in this mail list.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Liming
> > [Duran, Leo]
> > Hi Liming,
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow what you mean by an 'optimization request'.
> > At present IoLIb does *not* include the Fifo routines that I've
> > referred to, so I'm simply proposing to wrap the Fifo routines into in a
> library.
> > Moreover, as you just said, I’m also proposing not using IoLib to
> > avoid having to duplicate all of the functionality in IoLib.
> >
> > Can you please give me a bit more detail as to what the 'optimization
> > request' would be?
> > (i.e., should that request read exactly as I've proposed so far,
> > proposing the creation of an IoFifoLib?) I'll submit Bugzilla once I
> > better understand what needs to be in it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Leo
> >
> >
> >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Duran, Leo [mailto:leo.duran@amd.com]
> > > >Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 1:17 AM
> > > >To: Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek'
> > > ><lersek@redhat.com>; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; edk2-
> > > >devel@lists.01.org
> > > >Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff
> > > ><jeff.fan@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> > > ><michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice <maurice.ma@intel.com>;
> > > >Agyeman, Prince <prince.agyeman@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu
> > > ><ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly <kelly.steele@intel.com>; Wei,
> > > >David <david.wei@intel.com>; Guo, Mang <mang.guo@intel.com>
> > > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib
> > > >
> > > >Jordan, Liming, et al,
> > > >
> > > >It turns out that the runtime enablement of SEV feature that I
> > > >referred to can be detected in hardware; so instead of requiring
> > > >'driver' code to set a dynamic PCD, the override Fifo routines
> > > >could do a runtime check like this:
> > > >
> > > >// In override version of the Fifo library
> > > >fifo_foo()
> > > >{
> > > >	If (SEV_Enabled()) {
> > > >		// don't use REP ins/outs
> > > >	} else {
> > > >		// use REP ins/outs
> > > >	}
> > > >}
> > > >In essence we already have a hardware-based dynamic PCD, so the
> > > >idea is to leverage it.
> > > >
> > > >And since we're interested in overriding just the Fifo routines, it
> > > >would make better sense to keep them in a separate library (as
> > > >proposed in
> > > the patch set).
> > > >Leo.
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Jordan Justen [mailto:jordan.l.justen@intel.com]
> > > >> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 6:50 PM
> > > >> To: Duran, Leo <leo.duran@amd.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek'
> > > >> <lersek@redhat.com>; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>;
> > > >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > >> Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff
> > > >> <jeff.fan@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> > > >> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice
> <maurice.ma@intel.com>;
> > > >> Agyeman, Prince <prince.agyeman@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu
> > > >> <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly <kelly.steele@intel.com>;
> > > >> Wei, David <david.wei@intel.com>; Guo, Mang
> <mang.guo@intel.com>
> > > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2017-01-06 07:23:47, Duran, Leo wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com]
> > > >> > > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 5:12 AM
> > > >> > > To: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Duran, Leo
> > > >> > > <leo.duran@amd.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > >> > > <edk2-devel@ml01.01.org>
> > > >> > > Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Justen, Jordan L
> > > >> > > <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; Fan, Jeff <jeff.fan@intel.com>;
> > > >> > > Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice
> > > >> > > <maurice.ma@intel.com>; Agyeman, Prince
> > > >> <prince.agyeman@intel.com>;
> > > >> > > Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly
> > > >> > > <kelly.steele@intel.com>; Wei, David <david.wei@intel.com>;
> > > >> > > Guo, Mang <mang.guo@intel.com>
> > > >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 01/06/17 07:02, Gao, Liming wrote:
> > > >> > > > Leo:
> > > >> > > > FifoIo is one width type of EFI_CPU_IO_PROTOCOL_WIDTH. So,
> > > >> > > > how about add new APIs into IoLib together with other Io
> > > >> > > > APIs? If so, no new library class is required. Platform DSC
> > > >> > > > files are not required to be changed.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But then all of the IoLib instances will have to be extended too:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > IntelFrameworkPkg/Library/DxeIoLibCpuIo/DxeIoLibCpuIo.inf
> > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/BaseIoLibIntrinsic/BaseIoLibIntrinsic.inf
> > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/DxeIoLibCpuIo2/DxeIoLibCpuIo2.inf
> > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/DxeIoLibEsal/DxeIoLibEsal.inf
> > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/PeiIoLibCpuIo/PeiIoLibCpuIo.inf
> > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/SmmIoLibSmmCpuIo2/SmmIoLibSmmCpuIo2.inf
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Laszlo
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > [Duran, Leo] Correct.
> > > >> > As I mentioned, one of the reasons for the new IoFifo library
> > > >> > is to be able to override it without having to duplicate the
> > > >> > complete
> > IoLib.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree with Liming about adding the functions to IoLib instead.
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps a PCD could be added to control if rep i/o instructions
> > > >> are used.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Jordan