From: "Michael Kubacki" <michael.kubacki@outlook.com>
To: Sean Brogan <spbrogan@outlook.com>,
devel@edk2.groups.io, "Kinney,
Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: "Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>,
"Jiang, Guomin" <guomin.jiang@intel.com>,
"Xu, Wei6" <wei6.xu@intel.com>,
"Liu, Zhiguang" <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 0/6] Extend Last Attempt Status Usage
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:25:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MWHPR07MB3440247DACAED5BFEE1ACE93E95B0@MWHPR07MB3440.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR07MB6962FE8E9FE055047A2F697AC85B0@BN8PR07MB6962.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Sean,
Thanks for the feedback.
#1 - I will include both suggestions in v4.
Thanks,
Michael
On 8/20/2020 7:37 PM, Sean Brogan wrote:
> Michael,
>
> #1
> I would suggest calling out the sub-range
>
> 0x10A0 | 0x17FF -- Free for Library Implementations of FmpDevicePkg
>
> I also might suggest splitting FmpDependencyLib and
> FmpDependencyCheckLib ranges just to show a consistent pattern of how
> each library instance within FmpDevicePkg gets a defined range.
>
>
> #2
> Given that edk2 does not have any real FmpDeviceLibs (only instance is
> FmpDevicePkg\Library\FmpDeviceLibNull\FmpDeviceLibNull.inf). Now is the
> best time to make a breaking change. It is very common for downstream
> code repositories to integrate edk2 and be forced to make changes
> associated with the new integration. To me this is preferred. A build
> break is easy to resolve. When functionality changes or new features are
> added but don't cause a break this is more difficult to integrate
> correctly. Not only that, it leads to nearly everyone ignoring the
> change. There is no need for this change to be a multi-year integration
> or cause extra development of shims and translation functions. The API
> change is pretty easy. The implementation can choose to to avoid the
> new ranges and just set the value to 1 (FMP unknown error). This would
> match the behavior of today. Obviously i believe it would better to
> take the extra time to create unique ranges for each of your libs. Also
> note that if anyone is doing third party binary integration this is not
> a breaking change. This only breaks for those doing a src build.
>
> Thanks
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/20/2020 6:25 PM, Michael Kubacki wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> 1) Yes, we can certainly leave more of the unsuccessful vendor range
>> available for future expansion. I believe we can also reduce the FMP
>> reserved range. How about a length of 0x800 for both?
>>
>> The ranges would then be defined as follows:
>>
>> START | END | Usage
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------|
>> 0x1000 | 0x17FF | FmpDevicePkg |
>> 0x1000 | 0x107F | FmpDxe driver |
>> 0x1080 | 0x109F | FMP dependencies (e.g. FmpDependencyLib) |
>> 0x1800 | 0x1FFF | FmpDeviceLib instances implementation |
>> 0x2000 | 0x3FFF | Unused. Available for future expansion. |
>>
>> Also, I don't see a problem with removing the length defines and
>> directly specifying min/max defines for each range.
>>
>> 2.) I understand the compatibility concern but as you noted it is
>> cleaner to maintain a single interface. I believe making the
>> transition to the new API will only become more difficult in the
>> future as it may go unnoticed resulting in implementations that don't
>> implement support for this capability leading to an increasing amount
>> of future effort to do work that could be done now. Perhaps we could
>> get thoughts from others as well?
>>
>> 3.) I will update these to return back an expected value.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>> On 8/19/2020 7:57 PM, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> A couple a couple general questions:
>>>
>>> 1) I see the entire range from 0x2000-0x3FFF is reserved for
>>> FmpDeviceLib. If we
>>> every add more device/platform specific libs for FMP, there are
>>> no ranges available.
>>> Should we limit the FmpDeviceLib to a smaller range to support
>>> future expansion?
>>>
>>> Also, the style of LastAttemptStatus.h with extra defines for the
>>> length of
>>> each range is hard to read, and I do not think there are any
>>> consumers of the
>>> length defines from this public include file. Since there are
>>> really only 3
>>> defined ranges, couldn't this be simplified to min/max defines
>>> for each range
>>> for a total of 6 #defines. I do not expect ranges (once defined)
>>> to change in
>>> length, and the most that might happen in the future is adding
>>> new ranges for
>>> new lib classes in the unused ranges.
>>>
>>> 2) This series makes non-backwards compatible changes to some of the
>>> lib classes.
>>> I agree this is the cleanest way to add support for the vendor
>>> specific
>>> last attempt status. It does mean that existing implementations
>>> will have
>>> to update their lib implementations to be compatible with this
>>> new version.
>>> I would be slightly cleaner to introduce new APIs with support
>>> for the
>>> vendor specific last attempt status codes. Then update all libs
>>> to produce
>>> both the existing APIs and the new APIs (The old APIs can call
>>> the new APIs).
>>> Then update FmpDxe to use the new APIs. This would be 3 patch
>>> series.
>>> If FmpDxe never calls the old APIs, then we could (at a future date)
>>> delete the old APIs from the lib class and the lib
>>> implementations could
>>> remove the old API that calls the new API.
>>>
>>> 3) The following APIs in the Null implementations have OUT params.
>>> Should these OUT params be set to an expected value?
>>>
>>> CheckFmpDependency()
>>> FmpDeviceGetImage()
>>> FmpDeviceSetImage()
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: michael.kubacki@outlook.com <michael.kubacki@outlook.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:16 PM
>>>> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
>>>> Cc: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D
>>>> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Jiang, Guomin
>>>> <guomin.jiang@intel.com>; Xu,
>>>> Wei6 <wei6.xu@intel.com>; Liu, Zhiguang <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v3 0/6] Extend Last Attempt Status Usage
>>>>
>>>> From: Michael Kubacki <michael.kubacki@microsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>> REF:https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2802
>>>>
>>>> This patch series adds more granularity to Last Attempt Status
>>>> codes reported during FMP check image and set image operations
>>>> that greatly improve precision of the status codes.
>>>>
>>>> The unsuccessful vendor range (0x1000 - 0x4000) was introduced
>>>> in UEFI Specification 2.8. At a high-level, two subranges are
>>>> defined within that range in this patch series:
>>>> 1. The FMP Reserved range - reserved for components implemented
>>>> in FmpDevicePkg.
>>>> 2. The FMP Device Library Reserved range - reserved for
>>>> FmpDeviceLib instance-specific usage.
>>>>
>>>> The ranges are described in a public header file LastAttemptStatus.h
>>>> while the specific codes used within FmpDevicePkg implementation
>>>> are defined in a private header file FmpLastAttemptStatus.h.
>>>>
>>>> FmpDeviceLib instances should use the range definition from the
>>>> public header file to define Last Attempt Status codes local to
>>>> their library instance.
>>>>
>>>> Of note, there's multiple approaches to assigning private status
>>>> codes in the FMP Reserved range. For example, individual components
>>>> could define their last attempt status codes locally with the
>>>> range allocated to the component defined in a package-wide private
>>>> header file. However, one goal of the granularity being introduced
>>>> is to provide straightforward traceability to an error source.
>>>>
>>>> For that reason, it was chosen to define a constant set of codes at
>>>> the package level in FmpLastAttemptStatus.h. For example, if a new
>>>> FmpDependencyLib instance is added, it would not be able to reassign
>>>> status code values in the pre-existing FMP Dependency range; it
>>>> would reuse codes for the same error source and be able to add new
>>>> codes onto the range for its usage. I wanted to highlight this for
>>>> any feedback.
>>>>
>>>> V3 changes:
>>>> 1. Enhanced range definitions in LastAttemptStatus.h with more
>>>> completeness providing length, min, and max values.
>>>> 2. Moved the actual Last Attempt Status code assignments to a
>>>> private header file PrivateInclude/FmpLastAttemptStatus.h.
>>>> 3. Changed the value of
>>>> LAST_ATTEMPT_STATUS_ERROR_UNSUCCESSFUL_VENDOR_RANGE_MAX
>>>> to 0x3FFF instead of 0x4000 even though 0x4000 is defined in
>>>> the UEFI specification. The length is 0x4000 but the max
>>>> allowed value should be 0x3FFF. This change was made now to
>>>> prevent implementation compatibility issues in the future.
>>>> 4. Included "DEVICE" in the following macro name to clearly
>>>> associate it with the FmpDeviceLib library class:
>>>> LAST_ATTEMPT_STATUS_DEVICE_LIBRARY_ERROR_xxx
>>>> 5. Included a map to help the reader better visualize the range
>>>> definitions in LastAttemptStatus.h.
>>>> 6. Included additional documentation describing the enum in
>>>> FmpLastAttemptStatus.h. An explicit statement stating that new
>>>> codes should be added onto the end of ranges to preserve the
>>>> values was added.
>>>> 7. Simplified error handling logic in FmpDxe for FmpDeviceLib
>>>> calls that return Last Attempt Status.
>>>> 8. V2 had a single memory allocation failure code used for
>>>> different memory allocations in CheckFmpDependency () in
>>>> FmpDependencyLib. Each potential allocation failure was
>>>> assigned a unique code.
>>>>
>>>> V2 changes:
>>>> 1. Consolidate all previous incremental updates to
>>>> LastAttemptStatus.h into one patch (patch 2)
>>>> 2. Move LastAttemptStatus.h from Include to PrivateInclude
>>>> 3. Correct patch 1 subject from "FmpDevicePkg" to "MdePkg"
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Guomin Jiang <guomin.jiang@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Wei6 Xu <wei6.xu@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Zhiguang Liu <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Kubacki <michael.kubacki@microsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>> Michael Kubacki (6):
>>>> MdePkg/SystemResourceTable.h: Add vendor range values
>>>> FmpDevicePkg: Add Last Attempt Status header files
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/FmpDxe: Add check image path Last Attempt Status
>>>> capability
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/FmpDxe: Improve set image path Last Attempt Status
>>>> granularity
>>>> FmpDevicePkg: Add Last Attempt Status support to dependency libs
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/FmpDeviceLib: Add Last Attempt Status to Check/Set API
>>>>
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/FmpDxe/FmpDxe.c | 176 +++++++++++++++++---
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Library/FmpDependencyCheckLib/FmpDependencyCheckLib.c
>>>> | 39 +++--
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Library/FmpDependencyCheckLibNull/FmpDependencyCheckLibNull.c
>>>> | 9 +-
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Library/FmpDependencyLib/FmpDependencyLib.c | 96
>>>> +++++++++--
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Library/FmpDeviceLibNull/FmpDeviceLib.c | 48 ++++--
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Test/UnitTest/Library/FmpDependencyLib/EvaluateDependencyUnitTest.c
>>>> | 7 +-
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/FmpDxe/FmpDxe.h | 4 +-
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Include/LastAttemptStatus.h | 96 +++++++++++
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Include/Library/FmpDependencyCheckLib.h | 8 +-
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Include/Library/FmpDependencyLib.h | 44 +++--
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/Include/Library/FmpDeviceLib.h | 48 ++++--
>>>> FmpDevicePkg/PrivateInclude/FmpLastAttemptStatus.h | 80 +++++++++
>>>> MdePkg/Include/Guid/SystemResourceTable.h | 13 ++
>>>> 13 files changed, 575 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 FmpDevicePkg/Include/LastAttemptStatus.h
>>>> create mode 100644 FmpDevicePkg/PrivateInclude/FmpLastAttemptStatus.h
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.28.0.windows.1
>>>
>>
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-21 21:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-18 21:16 [PATCH v3 0/6] Extend Last Attempt Status Usage Michael Kubacki
2020-08-20 2:57 ` Michael D Kinney
2020-08-21 1:25 ` Michael Kubacki
2020-08-21 2:37 ` [edk2-devel] " Sean
2020-08-21 21:25 ` Michael Kubacki [this message]
[not found] ` <ff2c5744-e104-9342-7255-2679abf0a3c6@outlook.com>
2020-08-28 19:20 ` Michael Kubacki
2020-08-28 19:25 ` Michael D Kinney
2020-09-01 18:13 ` Michael Kubacki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=MWHPR07MB3440247DACAED5BFEE1ACE93E95B0@MWHPR07MB3440.namprd07.prod.outlook.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox