[AMD Official Use Only - General] Hi Ard,
Please let me merge VangoGh board code next time after we finished the review process and build/verification test since I am maintainer and responsible for Vangogh Board platform code. I will discuss it inside AMD to how to resolve current Platform/AMD/VanGoghBoard platform code build fail issue and reduce customer impact. I will also discuss with Abner and other AMD reviewers to make a solution we want to move on. Thanks, Eric > -----Original Message----- > From: Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 10:12 PM > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > Cc: Xing, Eric <eric.x...@amd.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; Zhai, MingXin > (Duke) <duke.z...@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas > <thomas.lenda...@amd.com>; Yao, Ken <ken....@amd.com>; Roth, > Michael <michael.r...@amd.com>; Attar, AbdulLateef (Abdul Lateef) > <abdullateef.at...@amd.com>; Ard Biesheuvel > <ardb+tianoc...@kernel.org>; Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>; Min > Xu <min.m...@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm <quic_llind...@quicinc.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Platform/AMD: Add AmdSvsmLib to > required DSC files > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper > caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 15:00, Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > I guess my RB misled contributors thought the patch is good to merge. > However, I was thinking Eric's team should give the final RB after the > validation as they are the maintainers for the subordinate VanGoghBoard > platform. Suppose the impacted packages should be built successfully with > the patches applied, as this is considered the base requirement of the code > change. Nevertheless, the special build sauce for VanGoghBoard may be not > easy for contributors to verify the build. > > > > Eric, I have few suggestions for this failure, for the short term, you can > commit another change to remove this change, as the build failure has > impacts on our customer support. You can decide to recover this or not > depends on your business requirement. > > Keeping edk2-platforms synced with edk2 is already complicated enough. > So I object to changes to retain compatibility with downstream forks of EDK2. > Surely, you are not telling your customers to use EDK202208 with whatever > the top-of-tree of edk2-platforms is at any given moment? > > In any case, if upstream edk2 is important to you, please fix the current > situation in edk2 first. If it is not important to you, I don't see a reason > to > revert anything, and you can fix it in your downstream. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#118055): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/118055 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105537744/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
