On 3/5/24 12:50, Chao Li wrote: > Hi Laszlo, > > OK, I see, let's me try. And I have another question: > > Where should the low-level library be placed? Under the > UefiCpuPkg/Library and as the same folder as CpuMmuLib?
In my opinion: Under UefiCpuPkg/Library -- yes. In the same folder as CpuMmuLib -- no. Instances of different library classes are never placed in the same folder. Laszlo > > > Thanks, > Chao > On 2024/3/5 17:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> Hello Chao, >> >> On 3/4/24 04:39, Chao Li wrote: >>> Hi Laszlo, >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> When I discussed the CpuMmuLib API as a public API with Ray in the early >>> days, the API recommended by Ray should be the patch 13 in this series, >>> which only contains set/get memory region attribute, but in the first >>> version in this series, it contains more API, one is ConfigureMmu API, >>> which is included in ARM and RISCV versions. This API provides a >>> interface called in PEI or DXE stage, it will configures the MMU and >>> enables it, such as creating the page tables, filling the static page >>> tables, cofniguring the MMU registers, enbale MMU, etc. >>> >>> The paths for ARM and RISCV version APIs: >>> >>> ARM: ArmPkg/Include/Library/ArmMmuLib.h >>> >>> RISCV: UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/BaseRiscVMmuLib.h >> I have now re-read this subthread in its entirey, and I think I >> understand what's up. >> >> What confused me recently was your expression "so should we open >> configure API?" >> >> I think what you meant by "opening" was "publicly declaring". >> >> Anyway, here's my recommendation (consistently with what I said earlier >> in this thread): >> >> - I think you need a new (lower-level) library class and instance for >> exposing ConfigureMemoryManagementUnit(). >> >> Please see: <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/114972> (msgid >> <2a91f2f0-df4c-e106-65cd-79be16722...@redhat.com>). >> >> - I do not recommend trying to unify the new LoongArch library classes >> (low level and high level) with "ArmMmuLib.h" or "BaseRiscVMmuLib.h". >> >> Each of "ArmMmuLib.h" and "BaseRiscVMmuLib.h" seems to declare both >> low-level and high-level interfaces. For LoongArch, we apparently don't >> want that; hence the idea to introduce two library classes for LoongArch >> -- that may be considered an improved design. >> >> At the same time, I don't believe that this requires us to unify >> "ArmMmuLib.h" and "BaseRiscVMmuLib.h" with the new, LoongArch-motivated >> library class design. >> >> Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#116383): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/116383 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103971653/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
