Hi Andrei,
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 19:56:32 +0000, awarken...@vmware.com wrote:
> 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 agree there is confusion caused by this weird second implementation
of TFTP in Tianocore. It is yet another piece of unfortunate legacy
caused by ARM's initial focus on trying to make EDK2 look and work
like u-boot instead of understanding how to use it as a generic UEFI
implementation.
For that reason, it should have gone the same way as the ArmBds and
the built-in linux loader, but people kept arguing it was really
useful for debugging - so we let it be, and permitted platforms to
include it as long as it was not included by default.
But since its main contribution to TianoCore seems to be causing
arguments on the mailing list, perhaps we should finally bite the
bullet and nuke it.
The idea (which was probably mine) that "only permit platforms to
include it if it is disabled by default and people will get the hint"
has demonstrably failed.
/
Leif
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#57613): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/57613
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
