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