All,
From the feedback below, I'm going to assert that the current consensus
is to keep Bcm2836.h in IndustryStandard/ and therefore, outside of
adding an additional description with regards to its purpose, I will
keep this patch as-is for v5.
If this is not what we want, please let me know.
Regards,
/Pete
On 2019.02.01 08:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
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
