Re: [PATCH 0/3] MdeModulePkg/ResetSystem: Implement ResetNotification protocol

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 07/03/17 19:31, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 3 July 2017 at 18:30, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/03/17 14:09, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 11:04:08PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> Ard, Leif,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/29/17 10:32, Ruiyu Ni wrote:
>>>>> Ruiyu Ni (3):
>>>>>   MdePkg: Add ResetNotification protocol definition
>>>>>   MdeModulePkg/ResetSystem: Remove unnecessary global variable
>>>>>   MdeModulePkg/ResetSystem: Implement ResetNotification protocol
>>>>>
>>>>>  .../Universal/ResetSystemRuntimeDxe/ResetSystem.c  | 146 +++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>  .../Universal/ResetSystemRuntimeDxe/ResetSystem.h  |  21 ++-
>>>>>  .../ResetSystemRuntimeDxe.inf                      |   5 +-
>>>>>  MdePkg/Include/Protocol/ResetNotification.h        |  86 ++++++++++++
>>>>>  MdePkg/MdePkg.dec                                  |   3 +
>>>>>  5 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 MdePkg/Include/Protocol/ResetNotification.h
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we should
>>>> - either port this feature (patch 3/3) to EmbeddedPkg/ResetRuntimeDxe,
>>>> - or else rebase all platforms that consume EmbeddedPkg/ResetRuntimeDxe
>>>> to MdeModulePkg/Universal/ResetSystemRuntimeDxe, and delete
>>>> EmbeddedPkg/ResetRuntimeDxe from the tree.
>>>>
>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>
>>> I think deleting the EmbeddedPkg one, and making the current consumers
>>> implement ResetSystemLib instead of EfiResetSystemLib would be an
>>> improvement.
>>
>> Looks like you and Ard agree this is the best way forward. (I also
>> agree, I just wasn't sure if it would be your shared preference, due to
>> the conversion of dependent platforms possibly needing a lot of work.)
>>
>> Ard, do you want me to file a BZ for the ArmVirtPkg conversion? (I can't
>> volunteer to actually do the conversion right now; my plate is full.)
>>
> 
> I already sent the patch a couple of hours ago,

Yup, looking at it right now, thanks!

> but if we need a BZ
> entry as well [for documentation purposes], please go ahead and file
> one.

Nah I'm just in the middle of my usual post-PTO email crisis.

Laszlo