Please pardon the churn... It just occurred to me that perhaps renaming the library may justify its standalone existence... How about if I call it: X86IoFifoLib? (since the intended consumers are x86 packages)
Leo. > -----Original Message----- > From: Duran, Leo > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 8:31 AM > To: 'Gao, Liming' <liming....@intel.com>; 'Justen, Jordan L' > <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' <ler...@redhat.com>; 'edk2- > de...@lists.01.org' <edk2-devel@lists.01.org> > Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; 'Fan, Jeff' > <jeff....@intel.com>; 'Kinney, Michael D' <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; > 'Ma, Maurice' <maurice...@intel.com>; 'Agyeman, Prince' > <prince.agye...@intel.com>; 'Ni, Ruiyu' <ruiyu...@intel.com>; 'Steele, > Kelly' <kelly.ste...@intel.com>; 'Wei, David' <david....@intel.com>; 'Guo, > Mang' <mang....@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib > > BTW, > I also you should have mentioned that the proposed IoFifoLib is intended to > support just x86 (IA32 + X64)... Whereas IoLIb is universal. > Leo. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Duran, Leo > > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 8:23 AM > > To: 'Gao, Liming' <liming....@intel.com>; Justen, Jordan L > > <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' <ler...@redhat.com>; edk2- > > de...@lists.01.org > > Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff > > <jeff....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; > > Ma, Maurice <maurice...@intel.com>; Agyeman, Prince > > <prince.agye...@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Steele, > > Kelly <kelly.ste...@intel.com>; Wei, David <david....@intel.com>; Guo, > > Mang <mang....@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gao, Liming [mailto:liming....@intel.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 9:11 PM > > > To: Duran, Leo <leo.du...@amd.com>; Justen, Jordan L > > > <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' <ler...@redhat.com>; > > > edk2- de...@lists.01.org > > > Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff > > > <jeff....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D > > > <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice <maurice...@intel.com>; > > > Agyeman, Prince <prince.agye...@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu > > > <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly <kelly.ste...@intel.com>; Wei, > > > David <david....@intel.com>; Guo, Mang <mang....@intel.com> > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib > > > > > > Leo: > > > IoLib Library class is designed from the functionality, not code > > > implementation. So, many IO operations are included in this library > > > class. If developers want to use IO API, they only need to check > > > IoLib library > > class. > > > After add new APIs, we need to update all IoLib library instances to > > > implement them. And, if any library API implementation has the > > > different version, the full library instance will have to be copied > > > to another instance. I know your concern is to duplicate the library > > > implementation. But, I think this is the separate topic to optimize > > > the library implementation and reuse the same source file. Other > > > library instances may have the same issue. So, I suggest you submit > > > bugzilla for this optimization request. We will figure out the > > > solution and > > review it in this mail list. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Liming > > [Duran, Leo] > > Hi Liming, > > > > I'm not sure I follow what you mean by an 'optimization request'. > > At present IoLIb does *not* include the Fifo routines that I've > > referred to, so I'm simply proposing to wrap the Fifo routines into in a > library. > > Moreover, as you just said, I’m also proposing not using IoLib to > > avoid having to duplicate all of the functionality in IoLib. > > > > Can you please give me a bit more detail as to what the 'optimization > > request' would be? > > (i.e., should that request read exactly as I've proposed so far, > > proposing the creation of an IoFifoLib?) I'll submit Bugzilla once I > > better understand what needs to be in it. > > > > Thanks, > > Leo > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: Duran, Leo [mailto:leo.du...@amd.com] > > > >Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 1:17 AM > > > >To: Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' > > > ><ler...@redhat.com>; Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; edk2- > > > >de...@lists.01.org > > > >Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff > > > ><jeff....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D > > > ><michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice <maurice...@intel.com>; > > > >Agyeman, Prince <prince.agye...@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu > > > ><ruiyu...@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly <kelly.ste...@intel.com>; Wei, > > > >David <david....@intel.com>; Guo, Mang <mang....@intel.com> > > > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib > > > > > > > >Jordan, Liming, et al, > > > > > > > >It turns out that the runtime enablement of SEV feature that I > > > >referred to can be detected in hardware; so instead of requiring > > > >'driver' code to set a dynamic PCD, the override Fifo routines > > > >could do a runtime check like this: > > > > > > > >// In override version of the Fifo library > > > >fifo_foo() > > > >{ > > > > If (SEV_Enabled()) { > > > > // don't use REP ins/outs > > > > } else { > > > > // use REP ins/outs > > > > } > > > >} > > > >In essence we already have a hardware-based dynamic PCD, so the > > > >idea is to leverage it. > > > > > > > >And since we're interested in overriding just the Fifo routines, it > > > >would make better sense to keep them in a separate library (as > > > >proposed in > > > the patch set). > > > >Leo. > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Jordan Justen [mailto:jordan.l.jus...@intel.com] > > > >> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 6:50 PM > > > >> To: Duran, Leo <leo.du...@amd.com>; 'Laszlo Ersek' > > > >> <ler...@redhat.com>; Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; > > > >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org > > > >> Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; Fan, Jeff > > > >> <jeff....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D > > > >> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice > <maurice...@intel.com>; > > > >> Agyeman, Prince <prince.agye...@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu > > > >> <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly <kelly.ste...@intel.com>; > > > >> Wei, David <david....@intel.com>; Guo, Mang > <mang....@intel.com> > > > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib > > > >> > > > >> On 2017-01-06 07:23:47, Duran, Leo wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > > > >> > > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] > > > >> > > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 5:12 AM > > > >> > > To: Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; Duran, Leo > > > >> > > <leo.du...@amd.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org > > > >> > > <edk2-de...@ml01.01.org> > > > >> > > Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; Justen, Jordan L > > > >> > > <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; Fan, Jeff <jeff....@intel.com>; > > > >> > > Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Ma, Maurice > > > >> > > <maurice...@intel.com>; Agyeman, Prince > > > >> <prince.agye...@intel.com>; > > > >> > > Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Steele, Kelly > > > >> > > <kelly.ste...@intel.com>; Wei, David <david....@intel.com>; > > > >> > > Guo, Mang <mang....@intel.com> > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] BaseIoFifoLib > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 01/06/17 07:02, Gao, Liming wrote: > > > >> > > > Leo: > > > >> > > > FifoIo is one width type of EFI_CPU_IO_PROTOCOL_WIDTH. So, > > > >> > > > how about add new APIs into IoLib together with other Io > > > >> > > > APIs? If so, no new library class is required. Platform DSC > > > >> > > > files are not required to be changed. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > But then all of the IoLib instances will have to be extended too: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > IntelFrameworkPkg/Library/DxeIoLibCpuIo/DxeIoLibCpuIo.inf > > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/BaseIoLibIntrinsic/BaseIoLibIntrinsic.inf > > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/DxeIoLibCpuIo2/DxeIoLibCpuIo2.inf > > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/DxeIoLibEsal/DxeIoLibEsal.inf > > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/PeiIoLibCpuIo/PeiIoLibCpuIo.inf > > > >> > > MdePkg/Library/SmmIoLibSmmCpuIo2/SmmIoLibSmmCpuIo2.inf > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > >> > > Laszlo > > > >> > > > > > >> > [Duran, Leo] Correct. > > > >> > As I mentioned, one of the reasons for the new IoFifo library > > > >> > is to be able to override it without having to duplicate the > > > >> > complete > > IoLib. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> I agree with Liming about adding the functions to IoLib instead. > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps a PCD could be added to control if rep i/o instructions > > > >> are used. > > > >> > > > >> -Jordan _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
