On 01/31/19 22:01, Andrew Fish wrote: > > >> On Jan 31, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> +Andrew, Laszlo, Mike. >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 06:19:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:24, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:26:33PM +0000, Pete Batard wrote: >>>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie> >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Bcm283x.dec | 23 ++ >>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Drivers/InterruptDxe/InterruptDxe.c | 367 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Drivers/InterruptDxe/InterruptDxe.inf | 48 +++ >>>>> Silicon/Broadcom/Bcm283x/Include/IndustryStandard/Bcm2836.h | 72 ++++ >>>> >>>> Another generic comment: "IndustryStandard" is something like ACPI, >>>> SMBIOS, PCI, USB, MMC, ... (also including SoC/platform-specific >>>> additions to the same). >>> >>> Is that your interpretation? Or is this documented somewhere? >> >> Only in asmuch as it is a clearly descriptive name. >> >>> I could live with Chipset/, and I'm open to other suggestions, but the >>> Library vs Protocol vs IndustryStandard distinction is very useful >>> imo. >> >> It is useful because it is descriptive. >> Pretending that an SoC hardware description or a platform description >> header is an "Industry Standard" is disingenuous. >> >>>> I would be more comfortable with SoC-specific and Platform-specific >>>> include files living directly in Include/. >>> >>> No, don't drop headers in Include/ please. The namespacing is one of >>> the things EDK2 actually gets right (assuming you define the paths >>> correctly in the package .dec file), and I'd hate to start dumping >>> headers at the root level because we cannot make up our minds what to >>> call the enclosing folder. >> >> Mike, Andrew - what is your take on this? >> Is there a formal definition of not only what goes in >> IndustryStandard, but where chipset and platform headers should live >> in the namespace? >> > > Leif, > > I kind of think IndustryStandard as things that have a public spec
I think the same. I think any device / interface headers can go under Include/IndustryStandard as long as the interface was explicitly designed for external consumption, and is promised to be stable. I realize some packages have Include/Register too... I find that a bit redundant. Thanks Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
