Without wanting to blow up your RFC with another one - I discussed this with various people, including Bret when he was still at Project Mu, and there was a consensus among them that integrating the whole CPU arch code right into DxeCore would be a good idea. This would especially remove the hack that queues permission applications till CpuDxe loads for good, rather than requiring pro-active consumption of a library that proves this "fallback". For most of the architectural protocols, especially SecurityStubDxe, I never got the gist why you would want them to be separate from DxeCore. Obviously there should be a level of customizability for IBVs and OEMs, though that can be done statically-linked as well.
REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3223 What's your take on this? Best regards, Marvin -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#100134): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/100134 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96937485/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
