[AMD Official Use Only - General]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com> > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 12:53 PM > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianoc...@kernel.org>; > Jiewen Yao <jiewen....@intel.com>; Jordan Justen > <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>; Singh, > Brijesh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; Erdem Aktas <erdemak...@google.com>; > James Bottomley <j...@linux.ibm.com>; Min Xu <min.m...@intel.com>; > Lendacky, Thomas <thomas.lenda...@amd.com>; Daniel Schaefer > <g...@danielschaefer.me> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-staging/RiscV64QemuVirt PATCH V4 10/34] > OvmfPkg/Sec: Add RISC-V support > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper > caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 03:50:02PM +0000, Chang, Abner wrote: > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > Hi Sunil, this is my comment for both 9/34 and 10/34. > > The original RISC-V SecCore implementation can be used by RiscVVirt and > the RISC-V platforms under edk2-platform. So my plan back to half year ago > was to have SecCore under UefiCpuPkg, that would be Riscv64SecCore > because current the SecCore under UeficpuPkg is hard to be leveraged. With > this, one RISC-V SecCore driver can be used by RiscVVirt and RISC-V > platforms. Of course we have to move some Pcds to under PCD Riscv64 arch > section in UEfiCpuPkg.dec. Even through having PcdRiscVDbtFvBase(Size) for > Riscv64 in UefiCpuPkg.dec makes sense to me because Device Tree is part of > RISC-V processor initialization. > > Could you please take some time having this change? I think that is doable > and also an ideal implementation for RISC-V. > > > Hi Abner, > > Having SEC as part of SecCoreNative in UefiCpuPkg was my original proposal > when I had sent the RFC series to discuss in the design meeting. But if you > remember, Mike provided 2 major feedbacks in the meeting which made me > to move to OvmfPkg. > > 1) We should not add FDF related PCD variables in common packges like > UefiCpuPkg/MdeModulePkg. OvmfPkg is the only package (ofcourse > ArmVirtPkg also currently) which is an exception to this since it actually has > platform implementation useful for CI coverage. > > 2) Avoid new circular dependencies. We will have to use EmbeddedPkg in > UefiCpuPkg/MdeModulePkg for FDT if we use SecCore in UefiCpuPkg. Ok, this is convincing. Thanks. Abner > > It made sense to me and OvmfPkg already had the required PCD variables > and modules. Also, qemu virt can support different features (boot from flash > vs memory, number of flash devices etc) compared to real platforms. > So, it will be hard to use the same design for both virt machine and real > platforms. The original SecCore in edk2-platforms can be continued to be > used by real platforms. Like Ray suggested, I plan to look at MinPlatformPkg > design for real platforms in edk2-platforms repo which will make the design > flexible. > > Thanks > Sunil > > > Thanks > > Abner -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#95290): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/95290 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/94330834/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
