I have no objection to dropping the "enable TFTP by default". I already stated that to Ard in my original reply. That is not really a big issue (or an issue at all) since we have the -D build option to enable the command in some builds, and the net is no functionality change for end-users.
In general, I am in favor of having Shell commands that are wrappers around useful UEFI protocols/functionality where it makes sense (e.g. would be nice to have a CLI HII forms processor/browser..). I thought the TFTP command offered that (a wrapper around the MTFTP4 protocol), which helps in some Shell remote scripting (although honestly, not very useful on its own). I understand that there is hesitation in including non-standard commands in the Shell by default. I did not consider TFTP as a replacement for Capsule Updates, but I can see how it can be abused to be so. I agree that usage should not be encouraged. I still have not seen a review-by or ack for the ASSERT fix. Can we get patch 1 and 2 in the series reviewed and pushed please, and ignore patches 3/4? Thanks, --Samer > -----Original Message----- > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Leif > Lindholm via groups.io > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 7:23 AM > To: Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com) > <awarken...@vmware.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@arm.com> > Cc: Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud > <sa...@elhajmahmoud.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-platform][PATCH v1 0/4] Platform/RaspberryPi > : Enable TFTP shell command > > 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 > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#57630): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/57630 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
