On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:20 PM Lean Sheng Tan <sheng....@9elements.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mike for the proposal layout!
> It sounds good to me :)
>
> Hi Pedro,
> I went through the email chain again, basically these are 2 of your main
> concerns (correct me if I'm wrong):
> 1. a good idea to at least ditch that specific copy (current FDT in Embedded
> Pkg) for a git submodule.
> 2. Rework to remove/reduce libc Implementation as there is a problem with
> both libc fragments and compiler intrinsic fragments all over edk2. Should
> unify standards between crypto, libfdt, etc, could we try here
>
> I guess Mike has provided a plan to answer your first question, and the 2nd
> question would require a broader discussion with a few key owners.
>
> So it seems like we could get the current patchset from Benny Lin in for now?
> Any minor clean up needed for the current patch?
>
No.
3. Lots of questions and comments on the actual patch set regarding
the quality of the libc implementation. Which should be fixed,
regardless of centralizing a libc implementation.
Also questions on the FdtLib itself (why are we wrapping pure
libfdt functions with FluffyIdentifierNames and SCARY_TYPEDEFS?).
I also sent out an RFC for a central libc for GCC/clang based
toolchains, which should cover the libc usage of libfdt. Asked for
testing, got ignored.
So a NAK from me, in its current state.
--
Pedro
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#102845): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102845
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97955736/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
