Sunil, I don't have concern with your changes. Perhaps you can also move all existing source files to X86 folder.
> -----Original Message----- > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sunil V L > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 3:34 PM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com> > Cc: abner.ch...@amd.com; Kinney, Michael D > <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; lichao <lic...@loongson.cn>; Kirkendall, > Garrett <garrett.kirkend...@amd.com>; Grimes, Paul > <paul.gri...@amd.com>; He, Jiangang <jiangang...@amd.com>; Attar, > AbdulLateef (Abdul Lateef) <abdullateef.at...@amd.com>; Leif Lindholm > <quic_llind...@quicinc.com>; Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] The principles of EDK2 module reconstruction for > archs > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 03:33:45AM +0000, Ni, Ray wrote: > Hi Ray, > > > > 1. When a new arch's implementation is introduced to the existing > module which was developed for the specific arch: > > > > 1. The folder reconstruction: > > > > * Create arch folder for the existing arch implementation > > [Ray] Do you move existing arch implementation to that arch folder? It will > break existing platforms a lot. > > > > * Create the arch folder for the new introduced arch > > [Ray] I agree. But if we don't create arch folder for existing arch > implementation, the pkg layout will be a mess. > > > > [Ray] Hard for me to understand all the principles here. Maybe we review > existing code including to-be-upstreamed code and decide how to go. > > > > Could you please take a look below changes which is trying to add RISC-V > support for CpuDxe? > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > staging/commit/bba1a11be47dd091734e185afbed73ea75708749 > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > staging/commit/7fccf92a97a6d0618a20f10622220e78b3687906 > > What do you suggest with above example? > > 1) Common INF for all architectures - but modify INF alone, no X86 > folder creation. > > This is what I have done in the commit above. May be of least impact to > existing code > since it is only INF change. But like you mentioned this is bit weird that X86 > files will > remain in root folder directly along with some common files. > > 2) Common INF (CpuDxe.inf) + create arch folders X86, X64, IA32, RiscV64 etc > > IMO, this is probably the best approach. What would be the challenges > with this? > > 3) Separate INF for arch like CpuDxe.inf for x86, CpuDxeRiscV64.inf for > RISC-V. > > This again probably is not a good idea. > > 4) If the module/library is specific to one arch (ex: SMM(X86), > SBI(RISC-V)), then create separate INF. > > Thanks! > Sunil > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#94510): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/94510 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/93872791/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-