Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platform][PATCH v1 0/4] Platform/RaspberryPi : Enable TFTP shell command

["Pete Batard" <pete@akeo.ie>]

Andrei,

In case this is your concern, please note that we are not removing TFTP 
support at all, which is enabled for the RELEASE builds we produce and 
will remain so (and which anyone can enable with the macro if they wish).

All that will be changed by the updated proposal is that the current 
DEBUG ASSERT will be fixed and TFTP support will remain optional, like 
it is today.

So, in this case, I don't think your concern is warranted, because we're 
not actually taking any step to deprive anyone of any functionality they 
might wish for, and, even with the revised patch, TFTP will remain 
enabled in our RELEASE binaries, exactly as it has been before.

Regards,

/Pete

On 2020.04.19 20:56, Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> If we have to choose abstract goodness over functionality, why wouldn't 
> we choose functionality? Functionality that's part of Tiano? The real 
> world doesn't care about the TFTP command being an "unsupported hack" or 
> not. So there's Tiano-specific code here. Big deal? To rephrase 
> differently, why would either Pi 4 developers or Pi 4 UEFI users pay the 
> cost of Tiano carrying code that somehow isn't "legit enough" to be enabled?
> 
> I mean here we are again, where what goes into the code is being 
> dictated by some abstract ideology instead of technical reasons?
> 
> A
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2020 9:19 AM
> *To:* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud 
> <samer@elhajmahmoud.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>
> *Cc:* Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Andrei Warkentin 
> <awarkentin@vmware.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [edk2-platform][PATCH v1 0/4] Platform/RaspberryPi : 
> Enable TFTP shell command
> On 2020.04.19 14:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 4/19/20 3:04 PM, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
>>> Fix an ASSERT with the TFTP dynamic Shell command on the
>>> RPi3 and RPi4 when running DEBUG builds. Also, enable the
>>> command by default for all builds.
>>>
>> 
>> Fixing the ASSERT is fine but I am reluctant to enable this by default.
> 
> I'm going to second this.
> 
> To answer a question Samer was asking elsewhere, this is actually part
> of the reason why TFTP is not enabled in the DEBUG builds we produce at
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fpftf%2FRPi4&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cawarkentin%40vmware.com%7C27a7ee62d7734fc2000b08d7e46cb8be%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637229027923593475&amp;sdata=rKm%2BRZE%2FPWkvNTinHgQ5qgA9EDcD4lyIZSZMsHf66d0%3D&amp;reserved=0 
> (See build_firmware.sh), the reasoning
> being that if someone encounters an issue with RELEASE and we ask them
> to troubleshoot with the DEBUG artifact, we want to eliminate potential
> troublemakers when they try that.
> 
>> It is a non-standard hack that ARM contributed in the past, and is not 
>> covered by the EFI of Shell specifications. If RPi4 is intended to be a 
>> showcase for UEFI on ARM done right, we should not enable this at all.
> 
> Here I have to point out that RPi4 becoming a showcase because we intend
> to is not what we are pursuing (because if it was a matter of "willing"
> a showcase into existence, we would have picked a platform with a lot
> less quirks, more comprehensive documentation, and so on).
> 
> Instead, we estimate that due to its price point and widespread
> availability, it *is* going to become a de facto showcase, whether
> everybody likes it or not. And that is the reason we want to treat is as
> a showcase where possible.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> /Pete
>