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

["Andrew Fish" <afish@apple.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8701 bytes --]



> On Apr 19, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@vmware.com> wrote:
> 
> Stepping back, can we do a roll call among stakeholders so we start treating contentious issues as a community?
> 
> So far:
> 
> Samer (implicit, unless he says otherwise, because he proposed the patch): +1
> Ard: -1
> Pete: -1
> Andrei: +1
> 
> Anyone else?
> 

-100 since we don't use a points system :). 

The process is if the maintainers can not agree we let the Stewards decide. The next Stewards meeting is May 5th, so in the mean time we can try to reach consensus as that is our preference for a process. 

Maybe it would be useful to summarize the issue and state the pro and cons?


Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> How many points do folks thing we need for a merge? I'd say +2.
> 
> A
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> on behalf of Andrei Warkentin via groups.io <http://groups.io/> <awarkentin=vmware.com@groups.io <mailto:awarkentin=vmware.com@groups.io>>
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 3:42 PM
> To: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie <mailto:pete@akeo.ie>>; devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com <mailto:ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <samer@elhajmahmoud.com <mailto:samer@elhajmahmoud.com>>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com <mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platform][PATCH v1 0/4] Platform/RaspberryPi : Enable TFTP shell command
>
> It's part of Tiano, no? We didn't develop it. Yet I see it being used in many Tiano-derived UEFI implementations in the Arm world. I don't see a contract anywhere that all Tiano implementations ought to avoid components that don't fit the UEFI/PI/Shell specs. Can someone point me to such a contract?
> 
> We're entering the "victimless crime" territory here, and also violating the principle of least surprise.
> 
> I do agree that DEBUG profile may choose a subset of configuration options, for reasons such as sticking to a smaller configuration (for size, complexity, etc).
> 
> A
> From: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie <mailto:pete@akeo.ie>>
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 3:24 PM
> To: Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@vmware.com <mailto:awarkentin@vmware.com>>; devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com <mailto:ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <samer@elhajmahmoud.com <mailto:samer@elhajmahmoud.com>>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com <mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platform][PATCH v1 0/4] Platform/RaspberryPi : Enable TFTP shell command
>
> On 2020.04.19 21:21, awarkentin@vmware.com <mailto:awarkentin@vmware.com> wrote:
> > So if I understood correctly:
> > 
> >   * If a random person off the street builds edk2 - they don't get TFTP
> >     command out of the box
> 
> Yup. For the reasons that Ard pointed out (current TFTP being a 
> non-standard hack that should be replaced by something more suitable... 
> eventually).
> 
> >   * Our builds retain TFTP command
> 
> Yup.
> 
> > 
> > Correct?
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> on behalf of Pete 
> > Batard via groups.io <http://groups.io/> <pete=akeo.ie@groups.io <mailto:pete=akeo.ie@groups.io>>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2020 3:06 PM
> > *To:* devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Andrei Warkentin 
> > <awarkentin@vmware.com <mailto:awarkentin@vmware.com>>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com <mailto:ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>>; Samer 
> > El-Haj-Mahmoud <samer@elhajmahmoud.com <mailto:samer@elhajmahmoud.com>>
> > *Cc:* Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com <mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>>
> > *Subject:* Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platform][PATCH v1 0/4] 
> > Platform/RaspberryPi : Enable TFTP shell command
> > 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 <mailto:pete@akeo.ie>>
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2020 9:19 AM
> >> *To:* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com <mailto:ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud 
> >> <samer@elhajmahmoud.com <mailto:samer@elhajmahmoud.com>>; devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>
> >> *Cc:* Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com <mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>>; Andrei Warkentin 
> >> <awarkentin@vmware.com <mailto: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%7Cff25433f108e490d28fc08d7e49fa694%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637229246665197560&amp;sdata=rgUNgoQgPZGgfcQaQfzE6hn3WNj1Y5sgv6Zr9pbCJGg%3D&amp;reserved=0 <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fpftf%2FRPi4&data=02%7C01%7Cawarkentin%40vmware.com%7Ccdee787f93404c06347908d7e4a224c2%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637229257370688870&sdata=HMeXi%2FIPSgNEcMZkoVAOjfFob9KVafL8tffomlyD7Ko%3D&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
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 23510 bytes --]