On 05/07/21 17:19, Brijesh Singh wrote: > > On 5/7/21 10:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >>> Sounds good. What's your thought if I take out patch 1 - 9 from this RFC >>> series and submit them as non-RFC for the further review and acceptance >>> ? The patch# 1-9 are basically prepatch before we get into SNP specific >>> bits. >> More precisely, that means patches 1-8 (because patch#9 should be >> replaced by the module-scope override, and also moved to just before >> what is currently patch#21). >> >> Other than that, I agree, this is a good idea. I've anyway thought that >> the MdePkg stuff (5 patches) could be / should be merged up-front in >> separation, and then the subsequent 3 patches for OvmfPkg are basically >> refactoring. We can record the resultant commit range (8 commits) in >> TianoCore#3275, and keep the BZ open for the rest of the work. So go >> ahead please. > > Yes, I will keep patch#9 in SNP series. > > FYI, I will add couple of more patches in MdePkg to define the macros > for AP creation and RMPAJUST instruction. Now that GHCB spec is final, > we are working to get the AP creation implemented for the next version.
If the spec is final, then extending the MdePkg patches makes sense, yes. Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#74820): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/74820 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82479056/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
