Re: [PATCH 0/3] BaseTools,EmbeddedPkg,Maintainers.txt: Obsolete some drivers

["Ard Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>]

On 4/30/20 3:28 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 13:17:26 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 04/29/20 23:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 4/29/20 11:45 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 22:04:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>>>> I am mostly concerned about the use of MmcDxe in new platforms. The
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> bits I'm not too worried about, and I think it would be fine to
>>>>>>> move those
>>>>>>> into Platform/ARM/VExpressPkg in edk2-platforms, instead of hoping
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> someone will turn up and turn them into driver model drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could, although I would prefer not adding code to edk2-platforms
>>>>>> that would not be accepted was it submitted as a new contribution.
>>>>>> The SATA controller, I would ideally re-review and merge properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we do include the other drivers in platform-specific directories, I
>>>>>> want them to come with ... strongly worded readmes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we have some format for that? A way to log shortcomings along
>>>>> with
>>>>> the code?
>>>>
>>>> Thinking a bit more on this, maybe what we should do is add a template
>>>> to each file's top comment block. Draft proposal:
>>>>
>>>>     *
>>>>     * WARNING:
>>>>     * This driver fails to follow the UEFI driver model without a good
>>>>     * reason, and only remains in the tree because it is still used by
>>>>     * a small number of platforms. It will removed when no longer used.
>>>>     * New platforms should not use it, and no one should use this as
>>>>     * reference code for developing new drivers.
>>>>     *
>>>>
>>>
>>> Works for me
>>>
>>
>> You could also (or alternatively) add a separate file "DEPRECATED.txt"
>> to the directory -- sometimes people don't read file-top comments,
>> before duplicating or editing code. Something that's visible with a
>> simple "ls -l" might stand out more.
> 
> I think what's more visible depends on the use-case.
> A comment at the top of the file is at least very visible to the
> reviewer if someone submits Yet Another Clone of an inadvisible
> driver.
> 
> A DEPRECATED.txt might be a good ide for something like the
> EmbeddedPkg MmcDxe which we wan't people to stop *using* as opposed to
> copying.
> 
> Ard?
> 

Agreed. People tend to look at the file header when they add their 
copyright, so putting it in each file seems like a sensible way to do this.

As for using the likes of MmcDxe: perhaps we should add a 
i-am-deprecated PCD that defaults to a value that prevents it from working?