[if gte mso 9]>
Subject: [edk2] NON_FFS_FILE Not Supported
From: Tim Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 2014-06-17 04:03:06
Just as a follow on to my previous question about binary-only module deliverables for EDK2.
1. The current FDF specification (1.22d) incorrectly states that there is an option NON_FFS_FILE (see <type4> which is, in fact, not supported and, even if it were supported, would be pretty useless since it uses Options2 which makes it basically the same as RAW or FREEFORM, as far as I can tell. I think this was originally intended for use with OEM-defined file types but does not give the option for either an OEM file type (or GUID, if it will construct the extended header entry for the OEM file type).
2. If you could add a FFS file (product of the build tools) directly to the FV, an unintended side effect is that Dynamic/DynamicEx PCDs will not get placed into the PCD database, because the PCD database is constructed based on INF content references (in the [Pcd] sections) and FDF files don’t give such references. Of course, I can add these manually in an INF file, but I haven’t found a good automated way to use a FDF-centric build solution for this.