> > > > It's doable to program the hardware interface using DXE MP service > protocol in > > CpuSmm driver's entry point. > > But, considering the standalone MM environment where the CpuMm > driver runs > > in a isolated environment and it cannot invoke any DXE or PEI MP service, > you could > > understand that why we choose to put the hardware interface > programming in a separate > > PEI module. This is the major reason. > > Ok, *that* finally makes sense to me. Can you please add a source code > comment explaining this to the patch series? Patch #1 (which adds the > interface) is the best place I think.
Sure. Jiaxin, please. > > > I admit that a minor benefit of this design is we can isolate the > > private hardware interface programming in a close-source module. > > Otherwise, the SmmCpuFeaturesLib might need to expose a new API for > > the hardware interface programming. > > "benefit" and "closed-source" in one sentence while discussion patches > for an open source project. > > And you are wondering (see parallel mail by Jiaxin) why outsiders get > the impression you are trying to hide information. > > No further questions. Gerd, the benefit is to have a better modular design (separate PEIM instead of extending existing SmmCpuFeaturesLib), NOT "close-source" module. I don't have the power to argue with you why not open source the PEIM. Sorry:( I like open source world and the open-discussions here. It's the open-discussions that help to produce better design/code. Please don't imagine that "I" want to hide something. If I cannot tell you something, that's because the information cannot be public for now required by the company policy. Maybe people like you working on all open-source code cannot understand the difficulty of mixing open source and close source code. > > > Though this new HOB is not in PI spec, you remind me that we might > > need to add more fields to the HOB so a way to distinguish between > > different versions of the HOB should be considered. The way could be > > to introduce a new GUID for new version of HOB, or add a field > > (version?) in the HOB. I prefer the second. > > Established practice is to use a new GUID. We should stick to that. No concern from my side to have a new GUID once the HOB format changes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#99541): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/99541 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96350764/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-