Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Liming Gao]

Hi, all
  Besides those packages, I would like to introduce Tools directory to include 
some tools for the platform integration. Now, those tools are used and verified 
by Intel platform. So, I suggest to add them into Edk2Platforms Platform\Intel 
and Silicon\Intel first. When other platform uses them,  they can be considered 
to be moved into the common tools directory or Edk2 BaseTools later.

Platform\Intel\Tools:
  FMMT (BZ 1847)
  FCE   (BZ 1848)
  GenBiosId (BZ 1846)
  UniTool (BZ 1855)

Silicon\Intel\Tools:
   FitGen (BZ 1849)

Thanks
Liming
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 8:57 AM
To: Oram, Isaac W ; Gao, Liming ; 
Dong, Eric ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D 

Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Yes, ok for me.
Good idea to add the overview of the package content.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 8:55 AM
To: Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Yao, 
Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; Dong, Eric 
mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

This looks good to me.  I would suggest that we also capture an overview of the 
organization and the targeted contents of the different packages in the 
Platform/Intel/Readme.md or maybe a wiki page.

Thanks,
Isaac

From: Gao, Liming
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 6:27 AM
To: Oram, Isaac W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Yao, 
Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; Dong, Eric 
mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Cc: Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac and Eric:
  Here is the proposal for new packages in Platform\Intel directory.

BoardModulePkg: This package includes the libraries shared between the 
different board packages. Those libraries are linked by the drivers in the 
board packages.
DebugFeaturePkg: This package provides the debug features, such as debug 
library, debug method.
ManageabilityFeaturePkg: This package provides the system management driver, 
such as Ipmi, Smbios.
DeviceFeaturePkg: This package provides the different device support, such as 
SIO controller, Network.
UserInterfaceFeaturePkg: This package provides UI related modules, such as 
Logo, Setup page.

Thanks
Liming
From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; Dong, Eric 
mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Eric,

I have envisioned less granular packages for advanced features.  One of the 
goals for MinPlatform is to improve usability during porting.  The idea is that 
you would do basic board porting with minimal effort to get your system 
functional.  Then you would enable additional features by adding collections of 
features to your baseline.  Then as a last step optimize out unnecessary 
things.  This is something like a functionality oriented porting approach.  Get 
all the functionality you need by building up, then optimize out.  I would 
characterize Intel's traditional reference platforms as having everything and 
then adding and removing from a starting point that was very feature rich.  The 
challenge we seemed to face was that it was hard to remove things with the 
feature rich starting point.

As an example of functionality oriented porting, say that I set up my basic 
server port by starting with the Purley open board package.  I port it to my 
motherboard, then I check out my baseline functionality.  Then I add 
manageability features by including DSC/FDF from the ManageabilityFeaturePkg 
that add FV to my MinPlatform port.  And I repeat for other sets of features 
until I get all of the features that I need.  Then I optimize: for size, speed, 
to reduce complexity, and so on.  It would be best if this optimization were 
tool assisted to a great degree, e.g a more sophisticated FMMT that lets one 
cut out extra components.

My concern is that if we allow very specific feature packages, like the 
UserAuthenticationPkg, we are very much like today.  Yes, you can select any 
drivers you need and add to your DSC/FDF.  But that is very quickly 
overwhelming.  There are hundreds of drivers and what they require is often 
complex to determine.  Thus we tend to copy something else and customize it.  
This tends to lead to lots of technical debt and complexity.

I am thinking that we should target something like 10-20 advanced feature 
packages that produce one or two (if features have pre-memory components) FV 
with a 

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Yao, Jiewen]

Yes, ok for me.
Good idea to add the overview of the package content.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 8:55 AM
To: Gao, Liming ; Yao, Jiewen ; 
Dong, Eric ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D 

Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

This looks good to me.  I would suggest that we also capture an overview of the 
organization and the targeted contents of the different packages in the 
Platform/Intel/Readme.md or maybe a wiki page.

Thanks,
Isaac

From: Gao, Liming
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 6:27 AM
To: Oram, Isaac W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Yao, 
Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; Dong, Eric 
mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Cc: Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac and Eric:
  Here is the proposal for new packages in Platform\Intel directory.

BoardModulePkg: This package includes the libraries shared between the 
different board packages. Those libraries are linked by the drivers in the 
board packages.
DebugFeaturePkg: This package provides the debug features, such as debug 
library, debug method.
ManageabilityFeaturePkg: This package provides the system management driver, 
such as Ipmi, Smbios.
DeviceFeaturePkg: This package provides the different device support, such as 
SIO controller, Network.
UserInterfaceFeaturePkg: This package provides UI related modules, such as 
Logo, Setup page.

Thanks
Liming
From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; Dong, Eric 
mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Eric,

I have envisioned less granular packages for advanced features.  One of the 
goals for MinPlatform is to improve usability during porting.  The idea is that 
you would do basic board porting with minimal effort to get your system 
functional.  Then you would enable additional features by adding collections of 
features to your baseline.  Then as a last step optimize out unnecessary 
things.  This is something like a functionality oriented porting approach.  Get 
all the functionality you need by building up, then optimize out.  I would 
characterize Intel's traditional reference platforms as having everything and 
then adding and removing from a starting point that was very feature rich.  The 
challenge we seemed to face was that it was hard to remove things with the 
feature rich starting point.

As an example of functionality oriented porting, say that I set up my basic 
server port by starting with the Purley open board package.  I port it to my 
motherboard, then I check out my baseline functionality.  Then I add 
manageability features by including DSC/FDF from the ManageabilityFeaturePkg 
that add FV to my MinPlatform port.  And I repeat for other sets of features 
until I get all of the features that I need.  Then I optimize: for size, speed, 
to reduce complexity, and so on.  It would be best if this optimization were 
tool assisted to a great degree, e.g a more sophisticated FMMT that lets one 
cut out extra components.

My concern is that if we allow very specific feature packages, like the 
UserAuthenticationPkg, we are very much like today.  Yes, you can select any 
drivers you need and add to your DSC/FDF.  But that is very quickly 
overwhelming.  There are hundreds of drivers and what they require is often 
complex to determine.  Thus we tend to copy something else and customize it.  
This tends to lead to lots of technical debt and complexity.

I am thinking that we should target something like 10-20 advanced feature 
packages that produce one or two (if features have pre-memory components) FV 
with a set of features and simpler dependencies.  We are just in the early 
stages of defining what this would look like, and our thinking is evolving.  We 
have identified Manageability and Debug as feature collections.  I think that 
there is one for adding USB, network, Bluetooth and such peripheral support.  I 
think setup browser and UI stuff will go somewhere.  We can mine a few 
reference platforms for data.

Let's discuss this in person and make a proposal for organization for feature 
packages and the rules for what goes where.  We can add this proposal to your 
RFC and I think that will help guide the future development of the 
Platform\Intel contents.

Regards,
Isaac


From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 9:03 AM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, 

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Oram, Isaac W]

This looks good to me.  I would suggest that we also capture an overview of the 
organization and the targeted contents of the different packages in the 
Platform/Intel/Readme.md or maybe a wiki page.

Thanks,
Isaac

From: Gao, Liming
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 6:27 AM
To: Oram, Isaac W ; Yao, Jiewen ; 
Dong, Eric ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D 

Cc: Gao, Liming 
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac and Eric:
  Here is the proposal for new packages in Platform\Intel directory.

BoardModulePkg: This package includes the libraries shared between the 
different board packages. Those libraries are linked by the drivers in the 
board packages.
DebugFeaturePkg: This package provides the debug features, such as debug 
library, debug method.
ManageabilityFeaturePkg: This package provides the system management driver, 
such as Ipmi, Smbios.
DeviceFeaturePkg: This package provides the different device support, such as 
SIO controller, Network.
UserInterfaceFeaturePkg: This package provides UI related modules, such as 
Logo, Setup page.

Thanks
Liming
From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; Dong, Eric 
mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Eric,

I have envisioned less granular packages for advanced features.  One of the 
goals for MinPlatform is to improve usability during porting.  The idea is that 
you would do basic board porting with minimal effort to get your system 
functional.  Then you would enable additional features by adding collections of 
features to your baseline.  Then as a last step optimize out unnecessary 
things.  This is something like a functionality oriented porting approach.  Get 
all the functionality you need by building up, then optimize out.  I would 
characterize Intel's traditional reference platforms as having everything and 
then adding and removing from a starting point that was very feature rich.  The 
challenge we seemed to face was that it was hard to remove things with the 
feature rich starting point.

As an example of functionality oriented porting, say that I set up my basic 
server port by starting with the Purley open board package.  I port it to my 
motherboard, then I check out my baseline functionality.  Then I add 
manageability features by including DSC/FDF from the ManageabilityFeaturePkg 
that add FV to my MinPlatform port.  And I repeat for other sets of features 
until I get all of the features that I need.  Then I optimize: for size, speed, 
to reduce complexity, and so on.  It would be best if this optimization were 
tool assisted to a great degree, e.g a more sophisticated FMMT that lets one 
cut out extra components.

My concern is that if we allow very specific feature packages, like the 
UserAuthenticationPkg, we are very much like today.  Yes, you can select any 
drivers you need and add to your DSC/FDF.  But that is very quickly 
overwhelming.  There are hundreds of drivers and what they require is often 
complex to determine.  Thus we tend to copy something else and customize it.  
This tends to lead to lots of technical debt and complexity.

I am thinking that we should target something like 10-20 advanced feature 
packages that produce one or two (if features have pre-memory components) FV 
with a set of features and simpler dependencies.  We are just in the early 
stages of defining what this would look like, and our thinking is evolving.  We 
have identified Manageability and Debug as feature collections.  I think that 
there is one for adding USB, network, Bluetooth and such peripheral support.  I 
think setup browser and UI stuff will go somewhere.  We can mine a few 
reference platforms for data.

Let's discuss this in person and make a proposal for organization for feature 
packages and the rules for what goes where.  We can add this proposal to your 
RFC and I think that will help guide the future development of the 
Platform\Intel contents.

Regards,
Isaac


From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 9:03 AM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Since there is no other module, I think we can use this specific package name 
to tell people what it is.
It is also good for feature isolation.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:53 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; 

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Liming Gao]

Isaac and Eric:
  Here is the proposal for new packages in Platform\Intel directory.

BoardModulePkg: This package includes the libraries shared between the 
different board packages. Those libraries are linked by the drivers in the 
board packages.
DebugFeaturePkg: This package provides the debug features, such as debug 
library, debug method.
ManageabilityFeaturePkg: This package provides the system management driver, 
such as Ipmi, Smbios.
DeviceFeaturePkg: This package provides the different device support, such as 
SIO controller, Network.
UserInterfaceFeaturePkg: This package provides UI related modules, such as 
Logo, Setup page.

Thanks
Liming
From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen ; Dong, Eric ; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming ; Kinney, Michael D 

Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Eric,

I have envisioned less granular packages for advanced features.  One of the 
goals for MinPlatform is to improve usability during porting.  The idea is that 
you would do basic board porting with minimal effort to get your system 
functional.  Then you would enable additional features by adding collections of 
features to your baseline.  Then as a last step optimize out unnecessary 
things.  This is something like a functionality oriented porting approach.  Get 
all the functionality you need by building up, then optimize out.  I would 
characterize Intel's traditional reference platforms as having everything and 
then adding and removing from a starting point that was very feature rich.  The 
challenge we seemed to face was that it was hard to remove things with the 
feature rich starting point.

As an example of functionality oriented porting, say that I set up my basic 
server port by starting with the Purley open board package.  I port it to my 
motherboard, then I check out my baseline functionality.  Then I add 
manageability features by including DSC/FDF from the ManageabilityFeaturePkg 
that add FV to my MinPlatform port.  And I repeat for other sets of features 
until I get all of the features that I need.  Then I optimize: for size, speed, 
to reduce complexity, and so on.  It would be best if this optimization were 
tool assisted to a great degree, e.g a more sophisticated FMMT that lets one 
cut out extra components.

My concern is that if we allow very specific feature packages, like the 
UserAuthenticationPkg, we are very much like today.  Yes, you can select any 
drivers you need and add to your DSC/FDF.  But that is very quickly 
overwhelming.  There are hundreds of drivers and what they require is often 
complex to determine.  Thus we tend to copy something else and customize it.  
This tends to lead to lots of technical debt and complexity.

I am thinking that we should target something like 10-20 advanced feature 
packages that produce one or two (if features have pre-memory components) FV 
with a set of features and simpler dependencies.  We are just in the early 
stages of defining what this would look like, and our thinking is evolving.  We 
have identified Manageability and Debug as feature collections.  I think that 
there is one for adding USB, network, Bluetooth and such peripheral support.  I 
think setup browser and UI stuff will go somewhere.  We can mine a few 
reference platforms for data.

Let's discuss this in person and make a proposal for organization for feature 
packages and the rules for what goes where.  We can add this proposal to your 
RFC and I think that will help guide the future development of the 
Platform\Intel contents.

Regards,
Isaac


From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 9:03 AM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Since there is no other module, I think we can use this specific package name 
to tell people what it is.
It is also good for feature isolation.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:53 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Hi Jiewen,

So far, I don't have other modules which need to move to this package.

I think UserAuthenticationPkg is too specific, but if others also agree with 
this name, I'm ok too.


Hi liming, Isaac & Mike,

Any comments about the new package name?

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:35 AM
To: Dong, 

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Oram, Isaac W]

Eric,

I have envisioned less granular packages for advanced features.  One of the 
goals for MinPlatform is to improve usability during porting.  The idea is that 
you would do basic board porting with minimal effort to get your system 
functional.  Then you would enable additional features by adding collections of 
features to your baseline.  Then as a last step optimize out unnecessary 
things.  This is something like a functionality oriented porting approach.  Get 
all the functionality you need by building up, then optimize out.  I would 
characterize Intel's traditional reference platforms as having everything and 
then adding and removing from a starting point that was very feature rich.  The 
challenge we seemed to face was that it was hard to remove things with the 
feature rich starting point.

As an example of functionality oriented porting, say that I set up my basic 
server port by starting with the Purley open board package.  I port it to my 
motherboard, then I check out my baseline functionality.  Then I add 
manageability features by including DSC/FDF from the ManageabilityFeaturePkg 
that add FV to my MinPlatform port.  And I repeat for other sets of features 
until I get all of the features that I need.  Then I optimize: for size, speed, 
to reduce complexity, and so on.  It would be best if this optimization were 
tool assisted to a great degree, e.g a more sophisticated FMMT that lets one 
cut out extra components.

My concern is that if we allow very specific feature packages, like the 
UserAuthenticationPkg, we are very much like today.  Yes, you can select any 
drivers you need and add to your DSC/FDF.  But that is very quickly 
overwhelming.  There are hundreds of drivers and what they require is often 
complex to determine.  Thus we tend to copy something else and customize it.  
This tends to lead to lots of technical debt and complexity.

I am thinking that we should target something like 10-20 advanced feature 
packages that produce one or two (if features have pre-memory components) FV 
with a set of features and simpler dependencies.  We are just in the early 
stages of defining what this would look like, and our thinking is evolving.  We 
have identified Manageability and Debug as feature collections.  I think that 
there is one for adding USB, network, Bluetooth and such peripheral support.  I 
think setup browser and UI stuff will go somewhere.  We can mine a few 
reference platforms for data.

Let's discuss this in person and make a proposal for organization for feature 
packages and the rules for what goes where.  We can add this proposal to your 
RFC and I think that will help guide the future development of the 
Platform\Intel contents.

Regards,
Isaac


From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 9:03 AM
To: Dong, Eric ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
; Kubacki, Michael A ; Oram, 
Isaac W ; Kinney, Michael D 
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Since there is no other module, I think we can use this specific package name 
to tell people what it is.
It is also good for feature isolation.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:53 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Hi Jiewen,

So far, I don't have other modules which need to move to this package.

I think UserAuthenticationPkg is too specific, but if others also agree with 
this name, I'm ok too.


Hi liming, Isaac & Mike,

Any comments about the new package name?

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:35 AM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Cc: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

OK. Do you have any other modules what could be potentially in this package?

I think another option is to name it UserAuthenticationPkg, just like 
SignedCapsulePkg.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:28 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

I think sample means this is 

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Yao, Jiewen]

Since there is no other module, I think we can use this specific package name 
to tell people what it is.
It is also good for feature isolation.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:53 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
; Kubacki, Michael A ; Oram, 
Isaac W ; Kinney, Michael D 
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Hi Jiewen,

So far, I don't have other modules which need to move to this package.

I think UserAuthenticationPkg is too specific, but if others also agree with 
this name, I'm ok too.


Hi liming, Isaac & Mike,

Any comments about the new package name?

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:35 AM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Cc: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

OK. Do you have any other modules what could be potentially in this package?

I think another option is to name it UserAuthenticationPkg, just like 
SignedCapsulePkg.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:28 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

I think sample means this is an example about how to enable this feature. Code 
implemented with production quality. Platform can decide whether to use it or 
not.

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:06 PM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Would you please clarify what "sample" here really means? Not for production? 
Or something else?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen


From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:02 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Hi Jiewen,

I think SecuritySamplePkg used to save 1) sample implementation for security 
related features, 2) it's platform scope feature.
SecurityPkg used to save 1) common security features, 2) It's not a sample 
implementation.

This is just my proposal, If you have better one, you can raise here.

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Would you please clarify the position of SecuritySamplePkg ?

What is the difference between SecurityPkg and SecuritySamplePkg ?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:46 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>; Yao, Jiewen 
mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>
Subject: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac, Jiewen & Mike,

I plan to add a new driver named UserAuthentication. This driver shows a sample 
implementation about how to control user enter setup page. I plan to add a new 
package in Platform\Intel folder to save this driver. New package name is 
SecuritySamplePkg. Any comments for this RFC?

Thanks,
Eric
_._,_._,_

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41786): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41786
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31878106/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Dong, Eric]

Hi Jiewen,

So far, I don't have other modules which need to move to this package.

I think UserAuthenticationPkg is too specific, but if others also agree with 
this name, I'm ok too.


Hi liming, Isaac & Mike,

Any comments about the new package name?

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:35 AM
To: Dong, Eric ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
; Kubacki, Michael A ; Oram, 
Isaac W ; Kinney, Michael D 
Cc: Yao, Jiewen 
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

OK. Do you have any other modules what could be potentially in this package?

I think another option is to name it UserAuthenticationPkg, just like 
SignedCapsulePkg.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:28 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

I think sample means this is an example about how to enable this feature. Code 
implemented with production quality. Platform can decide whether to use it or 
not.

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:06 PM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Would you please clarify what "sample" here really means? Not for production? 
Or something else?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen


From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:02 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Hi Jiewen,

I think SecuritySamplePkg used to save 1) sample implementation for security 
related features, 2) it's platform scope feature.
SecurityPkg used to save 1) common security features, 2) It's not a sample 
implementation.

This is just my proposal, If you have better one, you can raise here.

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Would you please clarify the position of SecuritySamplePkg ?

What is the difference between SecurityPkg and SecuritySamplePkg ?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:46 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>; Yao, Jiewen 
mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>
Subject: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac, Jiewen & Mike,

I plan to add a new driver named UserAuthentication. This driver shows a sample 
implementation about how to control user enter setup page. I plan to add a new 
package in Platform\Intel folder to save this driver. New package name is 
SecuritySamplePkg. Any comments for this RFC?

Thanks,
Eric
_._,_._,_

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41784): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41784
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31878106/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Dong, Eric]

I think sample means this is an example about how to enable this feature. Code 
implemented with production quality. Platform can decide whether to use it or 
not.

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:06 PM
To: Dong, Eric ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
; Kubacki, Michael A ; Oram, 
Isaac W ; Kinney, Michael D 
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Would you please clarify what "sample" here really means? Not for production? 
Or something else?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen


From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:02 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Hi Jiewen,

I think SecuritySamplePkg used to save 1) sample implementation for security 
related features, 2) it's platform scope feature.
SecurityPkg used to save 1) common security features, 2) It's not a sample 
implementation.

This is just my proposal, If you have better one, you can raise here.

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Would you please clarify the position of SecuritySamplePkg ?

What is the difference between SecurityPkg and SecuritySamplePkg ?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:46 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>; Yao, Jiewen 
mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>
Subject: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac, Jiewen & Mike,

I plan to add a new driver named UserAuthentication. This driver shows a sample 
implementation about how to control user enter setup page. I plan to add a new 
package in Platform\Intel folder to save this driver. New package name is 
SecuritySamplePkg. Any comments for this RFC?

Thanks,
Eric
_._,_._,_

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41778): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41778
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31878106/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Yao, Jiewen]

Would you please clarify what "sample" here really means? Not for production? 
Or something else?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen


From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:02 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
; Kubacki, Michael A ; Oram, 
Isaac W ; Kinney, Michael D 
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Hi Jiewen,

I think SecuritySamplePkg used to save 1) sample implementation for security 
related features, 2) it's platform scope feature.
SecurityPkg used to save 1) common security features, 2) It's not a sample 
implementation.

This is just my proposal, If you have better one, you can raise here.

Thanks,
Eric
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Dong, Eric mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Would you please clarify the position of SecuritySamplePkg ?

What is the difference between SecurityPkg and SecuritySamplePkg ?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:46 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Oram, Isaac 
W mailto:isaac.w.o...@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D 
mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>; Yao, Jiewen 
mailto:jiewen@intel.com>>
Subject: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac, Jiewen & Mike,

I plan to add a new driver named UserAuthentication. This driver shows a sample 
implementation about how to control user enter setup page. I plan to add a new 
package in Platform\Intel folder to save this driver. New package name is 
SecuritySamplePkg. Any comments for this RFC?

Thanks,
Eric
_._,_._,_

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41721): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41721
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31878106/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Yao, Jiewen]

Would you please clarify the position of SecuritySamplePkg ?

What is the difference between SecurityPkg and SecuritySamplePkg ?

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Dong, Eric
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:46 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming ; Kubacki, Michael 
A ; Oram, Isaac W ; 
Kinney, Michael D ; Yao, Jiewen 

Subject: [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac, Jiewen & Mike,

I plan to add a new driver named UserAuthentication. This driver shows a sample 
implementation about how to control user enter setup page. I plan to add a new 
package in Platform\Intel folder to save this driver. New package name is 
SecuritySamplePkg. Any comments for this RFC?

Thanks,
Eric
_._,_._,_

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41718): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41718
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31878106/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Dong, Eric]

Isaac, Jiewen & Mike,

I plan to add a new driver named UserAuthentication. This driver shows a sample 
implementation about how to control user enter setup page. I plan to add a new 
package in Platform\Intel folder to save this driver. New package name is 
SecuritySamplePkg. Any comments for this RFC?

Thanks,
Eric
_._,_._,_

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41717): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41717
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31878106/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Liming Gao]

One update on new DebugAdvancedFeaturePkg. We can drop Advanced and use short 
name DebugFeaturePkg.

Thanks
Liming
From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Liming Gao
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:29 PM
To: Kubacki, Michael A ; Chaganty, Rangasai V 

Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel 
directory]

Michael and Sai:

  Now, we have AcpiDebug module in Platform\Intel\AdvancedFeaturePkg for debug 
feature, and I also see new patch to add Cmos related libraries for board 
feature. To make those features be enabled separately, I propose to create new 
packages for them. One is DebugAdvancedFeaturePkg for the debug related 
features, another is GenericBoardPkg for the common board features. If there is 
new code to be added in Platform\Intel directory in future, new feature package 
can be created for them.

Thanks
Liming


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41384): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41384
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31629687/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Oram, Isaac W]

That works for me.  My apologies for the bike shedding.

Regards,
Isaac

From: devel@edk2.groups.io  On Behalf Of Liming Gao
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 10:22 PM
To: Oram, Isaac W ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Kubacki, 
Michael A 
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

Isaac:
  So, how about BoardModulePkg for them?

Thanks
Liming
From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 1:00 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; Gao, Liming 
mailto:liming@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

I am concerned that BoardSupportPkg is misleading.  My understanding is that 
many people are familiar with board support files, board support packages, and 
similar concepts explicitly using the words board and support.  And in my 
experience, they have always had the board specific details.  Our package does 
not, it has code supporting board specific code.

Basically, I think that this is likely to be misleading to a lot of people.  
And I don’t particularly understand that common, generic, and universal are 
common, but support is not.  I don’t really have a better suggestion, not 
having more specific details on the content handy, all names are “common”.  
Maybe we need to think more about what goes in here longer term so we have more 
coherence and thus a more specific name is possible.

Regards,
Isaac

From: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> 
mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> On Behalf Of Kubacki, 
Michael A
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:17 PM
To: Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

In that case, I’d like to move the proposed name to BoardSupportPkg.

Thanks,
Michael

From: Gao, Liming
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:00 PM
To: Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

Michael:
 I am OK for both name. I think they have same meaning. To avoid the common 
word in Package name, such as Generic or Universal, BoardSupportPkg name may be 
better.

Thanks
Liming
From: Kubacki, Michael A [mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Gao; Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]


Hi Liming,

I agree with the need for both packages. We should wait at least another day 
for any additional feedback on the package name GenericBoardPkg. That name may 
give the impression the package can generically be used on various boards 
whereas the intent here is a package containing common or supporting board 
functionality. An alternative name to consider is BoardSupportPkg.

As a reminder, ensure the separation of content follows 8.1 (or update the 
document if necessary):

https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-minimum-platform-specification/8_stage_6_advanced_feature_selection/

Thanks,

Michael


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41364): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41364
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31629687/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Liming Gao]

Isaac:
  So, how about BoardModulePkg for them?

Thanks
Liming
From: Oram, Isaac W
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 1:00 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Kubacki, Michael A ; 
Gao, Liming 
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

I am concerned that BoardSupportPkg is misleading.  My understanding is that 
many people are familiar with board support files, board support packages, and 
similar concepts explicitly using the words board and support.  And in my 
experience, they have always had the board specific details.  Our package does 
not, it has code supporting board specific code.

Basically, I think that this is likely to be misleading to a lot of people.  
And I don’t particularly understand that common, generic, and universal are 
common, but support is not.  I don’t really have a better suggestion, not 
having more specific details on the content handy, all names are “common”.  
Maybe we need to think more about what goes in here longer term so we have more 
coherence and thus a more specific name is possible.

Regards,
Isaac

From: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> 
mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> On Behalf Of Kubacki, 
Michael A
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:17 PM
To: Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

In that case, I’d like to move the proposed name to BoardSupportPkg.

Thanks,
Michael

From: Gao, Liming
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:00 PM
To: Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

Michael:
 I am OK for both name. I think they have same meaning. To avoid the common 
word in Package name, such as Generic or Universal, BoardSupportPkg name may be 
better.

Thanks
Liming
From: Kubacki, Michael A [mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Gao; Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]


Hi Liming,

I agree with the need for both packages. We should wait at least another day 
for any additional feedback on the package name GenericBoardPkg. That name may 
give the impression the package can generically be used on various boards 
whereas the intent here is a package containing common or supporting board 
functionality. An alternative name to consider is BoardSupportPkg.

As a reminder, ensure the separation of content follows 8.1 (or update the 
document if necessary):

https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-minimum-platform-specification/8_stage_6_advanced_feature_selection/

Thanks,

Michael


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41311): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41311
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31629687/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Oram, Isaac W]

I am concerned that BoardSupportPkg is misleading.  My understanding is that 
many people are familiar with board support files, board support packages, and 
similar concepts explicitly using the words board and support.  And in my 
experience, they have always had the board specific details.  Our package does 
not, it has code supporting board specific code.

Basically, I think that this is likely to be misleading to a lot of people.  
And I don’t particularly understand that common, generic, and universal are 
common, but support is not.  I don’t really have a better suggestion, not 
having more specific details on the content handy, all names are “common”.  
Maybe we need to think more about what goes in here longer term so we have more 
coherence and thus a more specific name is possible.

Regards,
Isaac

From: devel@edk2.groups.io  On Behalf Of Kubacki, Michael 
A
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:17 PM
To: Gao, Liming ; devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

In that case, I’d like to move the proposed name to BoardSupportPkg.

Thanks,
Michael

From: Gao, Liming
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:00 PM
To: Kubacki, Michael A 
mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

Michael:
 I am OK for both name. I think they have same meaning. To avoid the common 
word in Package name, such as Generic or Universal, BoardSupportPkg name may be 
better.

Thanks
Liming
From: Kubacki, Michael A [mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Gao; Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]


Hi Liming,

I agree with the need for both packages. We should wait at least another day 
for any additional feedback on the package name GenericBoardPkg. That name may 
give the impression the package can generically be used on various boards 
whereas the intent here is a package containing common or supporting board 
functionality. An alternative name to consider is BoardSupportPkg.

As a reminder, ensure the separation of content follows 8.1 (or update the 
document if necessary):

https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-minimum-platform-specification/8_stage_6_advanced_feature_selection/

Thanks,

Michael


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41236): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41236
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31629687/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Kubacki, Michael A]

In that case, I’d like to move the proposed name to BoardSupportPkg.

Thanks,
Michael

From: Gao, Liming
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:00 PM
To: Kubacki, Michael A ; devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]

Michael:
 I am OK for both name. I think they have same meaning. To avoid the common 
word in Package name, such as Generic or Universal, BoardSupportPkg name may be 
better.

Thanks
Liming
From: Kubacki, Michael A [mailto:michael.a.kuba...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Gao; Gao, Liming mailto:liming@intel.com>>; 
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in 
Platform\Intel directory]


Hi Liming,

I agree with the need for both packages. We should wait at least another day 
for any additional feedback on the package name GenericBoardPkg. That name may 
give the impression the package can generically be used on various boards 
whereas the intent here is a package containing common or supporting board 
functionality. An alternative name to consider is BoardSupportPkg.

As a reminder, ensure the separation of content follows 8.1 (or update the 
document if necessary):

https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-minimum-platform-specification/8_stage_6_advanced_feature_selection/

Thanks,

Michael

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#41191): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41191
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31629687/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC][edk2-platform][Add new packages in Platform\Intel directory]

[Kubacki, Michael A]

Hi Liming,

I agree with the need for both packages. We should wait at least another day 
for any additional feedback on the package name GenericBoardPkg. That name may 
give the impression the package can generically be used on various boards 
whereas the intent here is a package containing common or supporting board 
functionality. An alternative name to consider is BoardSupportPkg.

As a reminder, ensure the separation of content follows 8.1 (or update the 
document if necessary):

https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-minimum-platform-specification/8_stage_6_advanced_feature_selection/

Thanks,

Michael

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#40994): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/40994
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31629687/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-