Hi Mike, On 2/15/24 18:29, Michael D Kinney wrote: > Hi Laszlo, > > I was also thinking the INF Version would be best approach. > > I recommend we identify the EDK II Build Specification and > EDK II INF Specification changes required to resolve this > issue. > > https://github.com/tianocore-docs/edk2-BuildSpecification > https://github.com/tianocore-docs/edk2-InfSpecification
I've reviewed both of these (their latest drafts). I've prepared patches for the Build spec -- they affect section "8.3 Auto-generated code". I'm going to post the patches soon. The INF spec seems to need no updates, *except* for the revision history in the README. I've checked all INF_VERSION instances in the spec, and neither looks relevant. In "2.1 Processing Overview": https://tianocore-docs.github.io/edk2-InfSpecification/draft/2_inf_overview/21_processing_overview.html we already state: [...] The EDK II utilities check EDK II INF files, and, if required, generate C code files based on the content of the EDK II INF. Refer to the EDK II Build Specification for more information regarding these autogenerated files. and in "2.4 [Defines] Section": https://tianocore-docs.github.io/edk2-InfSpecification/draft/2_inf_overview/24_[defines]_section.html we state [...] The EDK II parsing utilities will use some of this section's information for generating AutoGen.c and AutoGen.h files. [...] which looks sufficient to me. So I plan to post just a README update for the INF spec. Thanks, Laszlo > > > The current INF Spec uses INF_VERSION of 1.27. > > Should the new version be 1.28, or is there something I am > missing where 1.30 would be required? Or are you wanting > to jump from 1.2x to 1.3x to indicate a behavior change? > > Thanks, > > Mike > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:58 PM >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D >> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >> Cc: Abdul Lateef Attar <abdat...@amd.com>; Abner Chang >> <abner.ch...@amd.com>; Warkentin, Andrei <andrei.warken...@intel.com>; >> Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com>; Ard Biesheuvel >> <ardb+tianoc...@kernel.org>; S, Ashraf Ali <ashraf.al...@intel.com>; >> Bibo Mao <maob...@loongson.cn>; Feng, Bob C <bob.c.f...@intel.com>; >> West, Catharine <catharine.w...@intel.com>; Chao Li >> <lic...@loongson.cn>; Chiu, Chasel <chasel.c...@intel.com>; Duggapu, >> Chinni B <chinni.b.dugg...@intel.com>; Duke Zhai <duke.z...@amd.com>; >> Aktas, Erdem <erdemak...@google.com>; Eric Xing <eric.x...@amd.com>; >> Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>; Guo, Gua <gua....@intel.com>; Dong, >> Guo <guo.d...@intel.com>; Igniculus Fu <igniculus...@amd.com>; Lu, >> James <james...@intel.com>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>; Kelly >> Steele <kelly.ste...@intel.com>; Ken Yao <ken....@amd.com>; Leif >> Lindholm <quic_llind...@quicinc.com>; Liming Gao >> <gaolim...@byosoft.com.cn>; Michael Roth <michael.r...@amd.com>; Xu, >> Min M <min.m...@intel.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel L >> <nathaniel.l.desim...@intel.com>; Paul Grimes <paul.gri...@amd.com>; >> Kumar, Rahul R <rahul.r.ku...@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com>; >> Rebecca Cran <rebe...@bsdio.com>; Chaganty, Rangasai V >> <rangasai.v.chaga...@intel.com>; Sami Mujawar <sami.muja...@arm.com>; >> Rhodes, Sean <sean@starlabs.systems>; Zeng, Star <star.z...@intel.com>; >> Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com>; Mohapatra, Susovan >> <susovan.mohapa...@intel.com>; Kuo, Ted <ted....@intel.com>; Tom >> Lendacky <thomas.lenda...@amd.com>; USER0FISH <libing1...@outlook.com>; >> Xianglai li <lixiang...@loongson.cn>; Chen, Christine >> <yuwei.c...@intel.com>; caiyuqing379 <caiyuqing...@outlook.com>; dahogn >> <dah...@hotmail.com>; meng-cz <mengcz1...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/AutoGen: declare >> ProcessLibraryConstructorList() for SEC modules >> >> On 2/8/24 17:40, Michael D Kinney wrote: >>> Hi Laszlo, >>> >>> I need to review the proposed BaseTools/AutoGen change to see what >> options >>> are available for compatibility. >>> >>> My main concern is downstream consumers that may break immediately >> with >>> a change like this and we need a way for them to be informed and have >>> time to update their components just like you outline a sequence to >> update >>> the edk2 repo components. >> >> Should AutoGen declare ProcessLibraryConstructorList() for a SEC module >> if INF_VERSION >= 1.30? >> >> Or should we introduce a new macro in [Defines]? >> >> https://tianocore-docs.github.io/edk2- >> InfSpecification/draft/2_inf_overview/24_[defines]_section.html >> >> "EDK II parsing utilities will use some of this section's information >> for generating AutoGen.c and AutoGen.h files." >> >> I'd prefer (INF_VERSION >= 1.30) over a dedicated macro. We should >> ensure, over time, that ProcessLibraryConstructorList() is declared by >> default, for SEC modules. If that declaration depended on an explicit >> new macro in [Defines], it would much less likely become the default. >> >> Laszlo > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#115907): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/115907 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104210524/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
