>
> That seems very Rube Goldberg.
Ok it seems again that I've hit a XY problem.
I thought that solution might have been the standard way to do it... if it's
not, I don't want to do anything that possibly breaks the spec. That would
require a way more thorough understanding of the UEFI model.
Hi Liming,
I see the pull request CI check failed and changes are not merged. The failure
is not related to ShellPkg changes.
Please help to check.
Thanks,
Sainadh.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#96184): https://edk2.gr
This change has been merged by PR https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/3611.
Thanks
Liming
发件人: devel@edk2.groups.io 代表 Sainadh Nagolu via groups.io
发送时间: 2022年11月10日 11:57
收件人: gaoliming ; devel@edk2.groups.io
主题: Re: [edk2-devel] 回复: [edk2-devel] 回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH]
ShellPkg:Impro
Thanks for cleaner implementation Ted!
Reviewed-by: Chasel Chiu
> -Original Message-
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Kuo,
> Ted
> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 3:31 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Chiu, Chasel ; Desimone, Nathaniel L
> ; Zeng, Star ; S,
> Ashraf Al
REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4146
Update edk2-pytool-library to version 0.12.0 that adds support for
the environment variable PYTOOL_TEMPORARILY_IGNORE_NESTED_EDK_PACKAGES
that can be set to true to ignore nested packages instead of breaking
the build with an exception. Nest
Hi Liming,
Please help to merge the changes.
Thanks,
Sainadh.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#96180): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/96180
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/94881831/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow
*Reminder: TianoCore Community Meeting - APAC/NAMO*
*When:*
Thursday, November 10, 2022
7:30pm to 8:30pm
(UTC-08:00) America/Los Angeles
*Where:*
https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_Y2M1NDE3ODYtN2M3Yy00MDMxLTk3OWYtMTlkNjhlNWFlMjA2%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%2246c98d8
OK, I got it, thanks! By the way, I don't know whether it is appropriate that
the PCDs have no value in UefiPayloadPkg.dsc.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#96178): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/96178
Mute This T
In dec file, it have compatibility for [PcdsFixedAtBuild,
PcdsPatchableInModule, PcdsDynamic, PcdsDynamicEx]
In UefiPayloadPkg.dsc, in the same time it only choose one of these attributes,
so on UefiPayloadPkg is choosing DynamicEx PCD as its attribute.
Thanks,
Gua
From: devel@edk2.groups.io On
Yes, these pcds is used by PciBus driver, my comment is not correct. My
intention is these PCDs have no value in the UefiPaylodPkd.dsc, we can use the
default values in MdeModulePkg.dec or override the values in
UefiPaylodPkd.dsc.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:58 AM, Ni, Ray wrote:
>
>
>
>
These PCDs are used by PciBus driver and MP init logic which are included in
the UefiPayloadPkg.
From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Jiading Zhang
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:53 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] UefiPayloadPkg: remove the redundant PCD
defini
The following PCDs have no value in the file of UefiPayloadPkg.dsc, and they
are not used in UefiPayloadPkg, so remove them from [PcdsDynamicExDefault]
section.
gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdAriSupport
gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdMrIovSupport
gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdSrIovSuppo
Hi G Edhaya,
Thank you for taking the time to review this patch and issue. I have tested the
changes you have made and they pass locally and resolve the issues we are
experiencing with this test.
Thanks,
Robert Wood
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to thi
Slight correction: PAE paging can access up to 52 physical address
bits, for 4 PBytes of memory. Section 4.4 of the Intel® 64 and IA-32
Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 3 (3A, 3B, 3C & 3D):
System Programming Guide covers it.
Brian J. Johnson
Vincent,
Thanks! I’d forgotten about that path.
The other answer is defer the work to a DXE driver that runs 64-bit x86.
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
> On Nov 9, 2022, at 10:58 AM, vincent zimmer wrote:
>
> we have the challenge of 32-bit PEI needing to access 64-bit addresses to
> support 64-bit D
> On Nov 9, 2022, at 10:29 AM, d.meneses via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> Thank you Andrew for your reply.
>
> Your explanation about the Driver Binding protocol cleared up some questions
> of mine.
>
> Regarding the BDS, I recon I have some reading to do before I understand what
> you said and
Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney
> -Original Message-
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Dionna Glaze
> via groups.io
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 8:46 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Dionna Glaze ; Gerd Hoffmann ;
> James Bottomley ; Yao, Jiewen
> ; Tom Lendacky ; Ard
>
Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney
> -Original Message-
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Dionna Glaze
> via groups.io
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 8:46 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Dionna Glaze ; Ard Biescheuvel ;
> Xu, Min M ; Gerd Hoffmann
> ; James Bottomley ; Tom L
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 15:12:48 -0800, Michael D Kinney wrote:
> REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4134
>
> Add submodule for googletest and add GoogleTestLib that is
> required for GoogleTest based unit tests. Add GoogleTest
> documentation to Readme.md along with a port of the
Thank you Andrew for your reply.
Your explanation about the Driver Binding protocol cleared up some questions of
mine.
Regarding the BDS, I recon I have some reading to do before I understand what
you said and why it might be relevant to me.
For now I am investigating the possibility of having
>
> I can create a new patch that contains, the two Event definitions and the
> code that signals both events. I can use my patches that I already have and
> then add the code from your submission that signals the After Ready to Boot
> event to that.
>
> Rob
I think since Jiewen and Ard alread
> On Nov 4, 2022, at 6:20 AM, d.meneses via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> Using DebugLib instead to print a message, I was able to confirm that my
> driver is now running properly:
> cat debug.log | grep Hello
> This works both when adding it in the OVMF build and also when inserted by
> UEFITool.
Okay, so drop v2 and go back to review v1? Nothing changed other than this.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 9:35 AM Kinney, Michael D
wrote:
>
> Hi Dionna,
>
> My mistake. I misread the UEFI 2.9 Spec content and thought they were both
> for exit boot services.
>
> Your patch series with only Before Exit
Hi Mike,
All I did was copy the existing error handling in the scenario where we are
unable to set up the buffer for any reason:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdeModulePkg/Universal/CapsuleRuntimeDxe/X64/SaveLongModeContext.c#L191
I agree that seems a little odd, but I haven’t i
Hi Dionna,
My mistake. I misread the UEFI 2.9 Spec content and thought they were both for
exit boot services.
Your patch series with only Before Exit Boot Services is appropriate for your
change.
The After Ready To Boot can be in its own patch series.
Best regards,
Mike
> -Original Mes
From: Michael Kubacki
While more portable methods exist to handle these cases, this change
does not attempt to do more than fix the immediate problem and
follow the conventions already established in this code.
`snprintf()` is introduced as the minimum improvement apart from
making the buffers l
From: Michael Kubacki
Purdue Compiler Construction Tool Set (PCCTS) source code was copied/
pasted into BaseTools/Source/C/VfrCompile/Pccts/.
The code contains tab characters instead of spaces.
PatchCheck.py gives an error on modifications to files that
contain tabs.
This change adds that dire
Dionna,
I can create a new patch that contains, the two Event definitions and the code
that signals both events. I can use my patches that I already have and then
add the code from your submission that signals the After Ready to Boot event to
that.
Rob
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Link
> I gave feedback about After Exit Boot Services event.
>
I saw no such event in the specification
> Why is an After Ready To Boot signal now part of this series?
>
I thought that's the event you meant, since its mantis number is 2042,
whereas before exit boot services is 2043. That fits the "sa
Hi Dionna,
I gave feedback about After Exit Boot Services event.
Why is an After Ready To Boot signal now part of this series?
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: Dionna Glaze
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:16 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Dionna Glaze ; Kinney, Michael D
> ;
>
> I am confused. I see patches related to ReadyToBoot and ExitBootServices and
> they mix what is in description and what is in code.
>
Will you please comment on the patches in question where the error is?
I don't follow what you're saying.
> I recommend you coordinate and put together a cle
I am confused. I see patches related to ReadyToBoot and ExitBootServices and
they mix what is in description and what is in code.
I recommend you coordinate and put together a clean set of patches for these
topics.
Thanks,
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Be
Add StandaloneMmIplPei IA32/X64 driver at PEI stage.
FSP will use this driver to load Standalone MM code
to dispatch other Standalone MM drivers.
Signed-off-by: Hongbin1 Zhang
Cc: Jiewen Yao
Cc: Ray Ni
Cc: Star Zeng
Cc: Sami Mujawar
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Supreeth Venkatesh
---
StandaloneM
> So how should we want to handle this. Leave yours in or leave mine in.
Given that I'm not particularly confident in how I've implemented the
after_ready_to_boot spec, and you haven't implemented it, I'm not
sure. I'm pursuing the before_exit_boot_services implementation to
solve a problem in co
Mike,
I did not create the code to signal the After Exit Boot Services event. Just
the code that defines the event. I noticed that another submission authored by
Dionna Glaze adds the code to signal the event.
[PATCH v2 4/4] MdePkg: Signal AfterReadyToBoot after ReadyToBoot
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
*Reminder: TianoCore Community Meeting EMEA/NAMO*
*When:*
Thursday, November 10, 2022
8:00am to 9:00am
(UTC-08:00) America/Los Angeles
*Where:*
Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join
the meeting Meeting ID: 226 323 011 029 Passcode: hMRCj6 Download Teams |
Dionna,
So how should we want to handle this. Leave yours in or leave mine in.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#96135): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/96135
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/94899157/21656
Grou
Current default value for DMI tables in uni files is "Not Specified".
This causes an error when running FWTS tests. To avoid these errors,
and align more accurately with the SMBIOS spec, this value should
be changed to "".
Cc: Leif Lindholm
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Sami Mujawar
Signed-off-by: Sam
Current default values in uni files are set to "Not Specified". This
value causes errors in DMI tables when running FWTS tests. To avoid
these errors and align more closely with the SMBIOS spec, the default
value is changed from "Not Specified" to empty string "".
REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore
Hello Jeff,
On 11/7/22 16:57, Jeff Brasen via groups.io wrote:
Allow object to specify the name of processor and processor container
nodes and the UID of processor containers.
This allows these to be more accurately referenced from other tables.
For example for the _PSL method or the UID in
REF:https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4114
1.Use xmm5 slot 1 and xmm6 slot 3 to save ucode status and UPD pointer
respectively in TempRamInitApi in IA32 FspSecCoreT.
2.Correct inappropriate description in the return value of
AsmGetFspInfoHeader.
3.Replace hardcoded offset value 0x
On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 07:17, Hongbin1 Zhang wrote:
>
> Add StandaloneMmIplPei IA32/X64 driver at PEI stage.
> FSP will use this driver to load Standalone MM code
> to dispatch other Standalone MM drivers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hongbin1 Zhang
> Cc: Jiewen Yao
> Cc: Ray Ni
> Cc: Star Zeng
> Cc: Sam
Hi Robert,
In the present patch the verification of elapsed time is failing.
The patch will need additional changes as below (bolded):
diff --git
a/uefi-sct/SctPkg/TestCase/UEFI/EFI/BootServices/MiscBootServices/BlackBoxTest/MiscBootServicesBBTestFunction.c
b/uefi-sct/SctPkg/TestCase/UEFI/EFI/
43 matches
Mail list logo
