Modernise edk2-platforms (replace EFI_D_* and __FUNCTION__ with DEBUG_* and __func__)

[ghost]

Update code to be more C11 compliant by using __func__

__FUNCTION__ is a pre-standard extension that gcc and Visual C++ among
others support, while __func__ was standardized in C99.

Since it's more standard, replace __FUNCTION__ with __func__ throughout
edk2-platforms.

---

Replace deprecated EFI_D_* with DEBUG_*

Replaced the deprecated EFI_D_{INFO,WARN,ERROR,VERBOSE} usage with
DEBUG_{INFO,WARN,ERROR,VERBOSE}.

[samimujawar]

For Platform/ARM/*
Reviewed-by: Sami Mujawar [email protected]

[nhivp]

For Silicon/Ampere and Platform/Ampere, looks good to me. Thanks!

[nate-desimone]

Looks good for Platform/Intel & Silicon/Intel

Thanks @bcran!

[ghost]

Waiting on code owner review from @JohnAZoidberg, @ardbiesheuvel, @hrw, @kilaterlee, @leiflindholm, @lixianglai, @ndhillonm, @niruiyu, @vlsunil, @wojtas-marcin, and/or 1 others

[hrw]

For */Qemu/SbsaQemu:

Reviewed-by: Marcin Juszkiewicz [email protected]

[leiflindholm]

I'm not sure you need to wait for more approvals for this non-functional change.

[ghost]

I'm not sure you need to wait for more approvals for this non-functional change.

@mdkinney It looks like merging is blocked waiting for additional reviews.

Waiting on code owner review from JohnAZoidberg, kilaterlee, lixianglai, niruiyu, and/or vlsunil.

Merging is blocked
Merging can be performed automatically with 1 approving review.

[mdkinney]

A CODEOWNERS file is present, but I do not see any code owner tags in this review. Is the CODEOWNERS file consistent? Perhaps it is being ignored due to missing contributors or files not covered.

I just noticed detailed status. There are missing reviews by required CODEOWNERS for the files modified by this PR. This is a large PR that touches 300+ files, and requirement of enabling CODEOWNERS is that all code owners must approve.

If this is hard to do in a single PR, then perhaps consider breaking up into multiple PR.

Also, with so many files modified in many packages, why was this not split up into more than 2 commits?

[mdkinney]

There is also something not right about the CODEOWNERS config in this repo. There should be an icon next to each assign reviewer that is a CODEOWNER. See this PR as an example: tianocore/edk2-codereview#91

There are also github actions to verify the consistency of a CODEOWNERS file.

• https://github.com/mszostok/codeowners-validator

Some example uses of this checker in:

• https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-codereview/blob/master/.github/workflows/CheckCodeOwnerFiles.yml
• https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-codereview/blob/master/.github/workflows/CheckCodeOwnerMaintainers.yml

If there are CODEOWNERS that have not joined the EDK II Branch Maintainers team, then that need to be fixed first. They either need to join or they need to be removed from CODEOWNERS.

[ghost]

If there are CODEOWNERS that have not joined the EDK II Branch Maintainers team, then that need to be fixed first. They either need to join or they need to be removed from CODEOWNERS.

It looks like Jeremy Soller (@jackpot51) hasn't accepted the invite yet, nor has Bibo Mao (@bibo-mao).