Hi Pete, On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 13:21:41 +0100, Pete Batard wrote: > On 2020.08.03 13:09, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > Hi Pete, > > > > Well prodded (off-list). > > > > I expect I saw that arrive, expected the corresponding RPi > > resubmission to arrive shortly afterwards for me to test with and put > > it soundly at the back of my mind. Presumably you were waiting for > > this to be merged before resubmitting that one? > > Yes. I tend to find it inconvenient to reference to work that has not yet > been integrated, as I'm not sure how you're suppose to reference it. Should > you point to an edk2-devel post in the commit message? In the cover letter? > Something else?
The cover letter is a good place to describe such dependencies. We always merge edk2 portions before edk2-platforms, so once it's merged the only ordering requirement is that your edk2 isn't older than your edk2-platforms. Hence, we don't really need it in commit messages. > As a result, provided the dependency should be simple enough to review > independently, I prefer to alleviate that issue by just waiting for it to be > integrated. But if that's a problem, I can certainly ensure that future > co-dependent patches are submitted together. In this particular case, it wasn't actually important, we just ended up with mismatched expectations. Since it was fairly isolated code that I had already been able to test build in my environments when it formed part of the original driver. Regards, Leif > > Anyway: > > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <[email protected]> > > Pushed as bbb8a8185838. > > Thanks! > > /Pete > > > > > Regards, > > > > Leif > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 17:37:42 +0100, Pete Batard wrote: > > > These can be used, for instance, to automate the population of an SMBIOS > > > Type 0 BIOS Release Date when building a UEFI firmware (which is how we > > > plan to use these macros for the Raspberry Pi platform). > > > > > > These macros should work for any compiler that follows ISO/IEC 9899, but > > > we add a check for the compiler we have tested to be on the safe side. > > > > > > Note that we decided against adding a #error or #warn for compilers that > > > haven't been validated, as we don't want to introduce breakage for people > > > who may already be using the header with something else than gcc, MSVC or > > > Clang. Instead, we expect those to send a patch that adds their compiler > > > to the list, once they have tested the macros there. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > EmbeddedPkg/Include/Library/TimeBaseLib.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/EmbeddedPkg/Include/Library/TimeBaseLib.h > > > b/EmbeddedPkg/Include/Library/TimeBaseLib.h > > > index 4103c89b3891..ee2f191d985b 100644 > > > --- a/EmbeddedPkg/Include/Library/TimeBaseLib.h > > > +++ b/EmbeddedPkg/Include/Library/TimeBaseLib.h > > > @@ -12,6 +12,38 @@ > > > #include <Uefi/UefiBaseType.h> > > > +// > > > +// Convenience macros to obtain a build date > > > +// > > > +// These macros should work for any compiler that follows ISO/IEC 9899, > > > +// in which case __DATE__ is defined as a "Mmm dd yyyy" 11 chars string, > > > +// but add an explicit filter for compilers that have been validated. > > > +// > > > +#if (defined(__GNUC__) || defined(_MSC_VER) || defined(__clang__)) > > > +#define TIME_BUILD_YEAR (__DATE__[7] == '?' ? 1900 \ > > > + : (((__DATE__[7] - '0') * 1000 ) \ > > > + + (__DATE__[8] - '0') * 100 \ > > > + + (__DATE__[9] - '0') * 10 \ > > > + + __DATE__[10] - '0')) > > > +#define TIME_BUILD_MONTH ( __DATE__ [2] == '?' ? 1 \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'n' ? ( \ > > > + __DATE__ [1] == 'a' ? 1 : 6) \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'b' ? 2 \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'r' ? ( \ > > > + __DATE__ [0] == 'M' ? 3 : 4) \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'y' ? 5 \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'l' ? 7 \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'g' ? 8 \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'p' ? 9 \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 't' ? 10 \ > > > + : __DATE__ [2] == 'v' ? 11 \ > > > + : 12) > > > +#define TIME_BUILD_DAY ( __DATE__[4] == '?' ? 1 \ > > > + : ((__DATE__[4] == ' ' ? 0 : \ > > > + ((__DATE__[4] - '0') * 10)) \ > > > + + __DATE__[5] - '0')) > > > +#endif > > > + > > > // Define EPOCH (1970-JANUARY-01) in the Julian Date representation > > > #define EPOCH_JULIAN_DATE 2440588 > > > -- > > > 2.21.0.windows.1 > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#63667): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/63667 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/75769904/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
