On 4/20/20 4:41 AM, awarken...@vmware.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
This particular issue revolves around enabling a feature by default in
the DSC for Pi 3/4 platforms - the TFTP Shell command. Clearly, enabling
this for Pi bears no effect on other Tiano platforms. So far I've heard
something about the TFTP code being somehow bad, but what does that have
to do with the Pi platform using it? If it's bad, delete it from Tiano.
Or rewrite it.
The TFTP command can be included by a -D option on the build command
line, but I am opposing to enabling it by default. The reason for this
is that we have been trying to push back on custom vendor tools to do
firmware upgrades and other things from the shell, and instead, use
capsule update.
I really don't get what the drama is all about, given that the TFTP
command is only a -D option away when you want it, and we don't
distribute binary builds from edk2-platforms anyway.
.../last/ time we got into a spat about the value of revving the Pi ACPI
to 6.3 (the ACPI support we contributed in the first place). So that
patch just got ignored. Not even sure what to do about that one...
I rejected ACPI 6.3 table upgrades because, in their current form, the
only thing they achieve is losing the ability to boot an OS that
predates ACPI 6.3. Every piece of the platform currently being described
via ACPI can be described using 5.1 tables.
ACPI 6.3 tables are not 'better' or 'more current' than 5.1 ones. ACPI
6.3 tables should be used if/when they are needed, and not before.
I don't know, the maintainers may in fact be in perfect agreement (I
certainly do not know) - but certainly at odds with actual developers.
So, there appears to be a problem with the way edk2-platforms is run. Or
at the very least, I don't understand why it's run the way it's run.
The RPi3/4 support is developed by a group of folks
(https://rpi4-uefi.dev, https://github.com/pftf). These folks (from Arm,
from VMware, or unaffiliated) all follow their own goals, with some
alignment, but there's overall consensus that working upstream is A Good
Thing and is worth the effort. We loosely coordinate with each other
(Discord, have a bug tracker, etc). However, it seems that every patch
we propose, to a code base that we largely wrote and chose to upstream
into edk2-platforms, gets put under the microscope. That would be fair
and square when we're talking about changes to shared components, or
code that for technical reasons (quality or design) does not fit the
implementation/design goals of Tiano. However, what ends up happening is
_maintainers_ taking arbitrary decisions, contrary to the community of
developers behind the port. As a final say. I don't mean an abstract
mute community of developers. I mean the folks that specifically do all
development today for Tiano on Pi platforms. We have no control. We have
no say. Maintainers are certainly developers, and may have a stake and
interest in the code being reviewed, but at the end of the day they are
maintainers - they need to abstract away and agree to disagree on
matters that are subjective and opinion-based.
It is funny how it depends on the context whether I am considered just a
maintainer or one of the developers. Please don't misrepresent my
involvement as sitting passively on the receiving end of a patch
pipeline: I wrote the original barebones 64-bit port for Raspberry Pi in
the first place, and I am [somewhat] active in the development community
that you started around it.
Why are maintainers making these calls? We brought these platforms into
your garden because we were sold on the idea. Let us water them and take
care of them together. Instead, everything we do gets frisked with a
strip search. We have to spend our time constantly proving the value of
our work instead of using that very little valuable time we have to
actually move the Pi support forward.
Upstreaming code is a negotiation (via review) where the contributors
and the maintainers converge on the terms under which the maintainers
are willing to take charge of the code, and assume the responsibility
that it will remain current and in working order going forward.
The outcomes are pretty serious. If you ask folks in the Arm community,
they'll tell you "upstream first", and specifically cite lack of
firmware being upstreamed as being a serious problem. However, the way
edk2-platforms is structured, that goal is literally unobtainable
because edk2-platforms development doesn't scale, as all code gets
funneled through the few maintainers. I mean, why would anyone choose to
upstream to edk2-platforms? For the lack of positive reinforcement? For
the tedious process with no light at the end of the tunnel? It turns
developers away. It makes folks feel unvalued and disenfranchised. You
get to burn the midnight oil - pro bono - into something only to have
others tell you that you should have done something else or just get
your proposals ignored. It's not really a community - our choices, our
code and our desire to CONTRIBUTE and BE RESPONSIBLE for a proper
polished UEFI experience on the Raspberry Pi are worth absolutely
nothing here.
Again, can we please cut the drama? I have objected to
a) replacing ACPI 5.1 tables with ACPI 6.3 tables for a piece of
hardware that is 100% covered by the ACPI 5.1 spec
b) enabling TFTP by default
Beyond that, I don't remember any exchanges where we did not converge in
the end on something we were all happy with.
Why does a maintainer have any say over platform-specific code, where
there is developer consensus on the trajectory and there are no
over-arching technical concerns? Why can't individual platforms have
their own maintainers?
If you think 'developer consensus' should be sufficient justification to
take any change without scrutiny, I think you are looking for a hosting
platform, not an upstream open source project.
Individual platforms can have their own maintainers. However,
maintainership is a role you typically have to earn in a community.
What gets lost in the debate is the fact that we are all on the same
side here: we all want the best possible support for Raspberry Pi 3/4 to
be available in Tianocore. Escalating a silly difference of opinion such
as the TFTP issue to these levels only distracts from that.
I have stated before that I *really* like the Raspberry Pi port for its
polish and looks [none of which are my accomplishments], but the fact
(intentional or not) that it may become an example followed by others
when creating EDK2 ports for ARM means that I have a responsibility to
my employer *and* the community to ensure that it is a good
approximation of what state of art means for ARM platforms.
So better integration with the UEFI driver model for the onboard
peripherals is high on my list, as well as moving away from PrePi, so we
can start thinking about things like Capsule Update and measured boot
(if you have the hardware).
I am not saying this is your responsibility (or anyone else's) but
simply that the port is not finished, and so we haven't entered the
phase yet where we're just dotting Is and crossing Ts. So if enabling
TFTP support makes it easier to use a board specific hack to update your
firmware, it shouldn't be enabled by default, and distract from the fact
that we are still lacking support for UpdateCapsule().
--
Ard.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#57598): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/57598
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/73127191/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
