Re: [edk2-devel] MinPlatformPkg question

["Kirkendall, Garrett" <garrett.kirkendall@amd.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3594 bytes --]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

While I can work with Fsp named items in the MinPlatformPkg specification, I assumed the UEFI/edk2 team and maintainers might be amenable to making the specification more generic.  One of my concerns with Fsp named FVs is that critical core edk2 components are specified in them like PeiCore is specified in FvFspM.fv, etc.  There is only one guaranteed vendor implementing FSP and therefore it might be better to have more generic names which could attract more adopters more easily and reduce confusion.  Maybe there could be specified alternate names for non-FSP implementations?

Having FSP in the name would imply that the product supports FSP when it does not.

I'm looking forward in time as much as possible where this specification could encompass ARM, RISCV, etc. and provide similar useful items MinPlatformPkg can provide to x86 platforms.

I look forward to the next level of unified flow/structure that Minimum Platform can provide to the industry.

GARRETT KIRKENDALL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/AMD> |  Twitter<https://twitter.com/AMD> |  amd.com<http://www.amd.com/>
[cid:image001.png@01D93576.B3AD9190]

Words to live by: "Slow is Smooth.  Smooth is Fast."

From: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:58 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Kirkendall, Garrett <Garrett.Kirkendall@amd.com>
Cc: Oram, Isaac W <isaac.w.oram@intel.com>; Chiu, Chasel <chasel.chiu@intel.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Gao, Liming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; Bobroff, Zachary <zacharyb@ami.com>; Zimmer, Vincent <vincent.zimmer@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] MinPlatformPkg question

Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:54 PM Kirkendall, Garrett via groups.io<http://groups.io> <garrett.kirkendall=amd.com@groups.io<mailto:amd.com@groups.io>> wrote:

[Public]

Isaac,

One of the obvious hindrances to acceptance is the Firmware Volumes with Fsp in the name.  They would be obvious to an Intel FSP solution, but they are not obvious to any other solution.  Would it be possible to give them a more generic descriptive name that would apply to any type of solution?

GARRETT KIRKENDALL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/AMD> |  Twitter<https://twitter.com/AMD> |  amd.com<http://www.amd.com/>
[cid:image001.png@01D93576.B3AD9190]

Words to live by: "Slow is Smooth.  Smooth is Fast."


Garrett,

Surely you've got bigger issues with the MinPlatform than naming right? I don't see how this can ever be a hindrance, particularly considering all you've got in the final firmware images are GUIDs.

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/master/Platform/Qemu/QemuOpenBoardPkg/QemuOpenBoardPkg.fdf is an example of a virtual platform for QEMU in MinPlatform fashion. Combine that and
some other Intel platform and you probably have a decent idea of how an AMD platform would look like (mentioned QOBP because of the lack of FSP and pre-mem CAR, although AIUI AGESA does expose an FSP interface).

There are no problems by leaving firmware volumes you don't need/don't make sense (like e.g Fsp-T) empty.

--
Pedro

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12292 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 2614 bytes --]