On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 7:28 PM Kirkendall, Garrett < garrett.kirkend...@amd.com> wrote:
> [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > While I can work with Fsp named items in the MinPlatformPkg specification, > I assumed the UEFI/edk2 team and maintainers might be amenable to making > the specification more generic. One of my concerns with Fsp named FVs is > that critical core edk2 components are specified in them like PeiCore is > specified in FvFspM.fv, etc. There is only one guaranteed vendor > implementing FSP and therefore it might be better to have more generic > names which could attract more adopters more easily and reduce confusion. > Maybe there could be specified alternate names for non-FSP implementations? > Hi, To be clear, you are right that renaming things from FspX (and other possible examples) is a good idea. It's just not really a hindrance (despite silly politics), the docs are. You do not need the FSP to use MinPlatform. If you want to talk about real problems, we can start by mentioning that MinPlatform docs are not really all that great. They: 1) Mention Intel and Intel platforms all that time (why? this is supposed to be vendor agnostic) as well, almost assuming you're an Intel platform at points 2) Do not go in much depth about creating your own MinPlatform (and subsequently OpenBoardPkg) from scratch, and assume you already have an OpenBoardPkg to simply copy from 3) Lack simplicity and conciseness in many points All of this may very well slow adoption. As far as I know, on the QemuOpenBoard GSoC project the spec was mostly very underutilized except some bits like the list of required modules. > Having FSP in the name would imply that the product supports FSP when it > does not. > > > > I'm looking forward in time as much as possible where this specification > could encompass ARM, RISCV, etc. and provide similar useful items > MinPlatformPkg can provide to x86 platforms. > MinPlatform is AIUI at the moment pretty x86 PC centric. It requires components from PcAtChipsetPkg, UefiCpuPkg (which as you may know, is x86-only/mostly despite the name). Also requires a bunch of components like SATA and USB support which may not be wanted or needed in e.g a smaller riscv64 platform. It assumes a bog-standard PC environment where you need all sorts of features and components and drivers. Something I would personally love would be all sorts of reduced booting in MinPlatform (as in boot-to-OS-but-load-it-from-flash, etc. Many options), but it's probably far away still. I look forward to the next level of unified flow/structure that Minimum > Platform can provide to the industry. > > > > *GARRETT KIRKENDALL* > > > *----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/AMD> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/AMD> | amd.com <http://www.amd.com/> > > > > > > Words to live by: "Slow is Smooth. Smooth is Fast." > > > -- Pedro -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#99374): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/99374 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96222267/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
