Hi all, On 27/10/2026 03:31, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 10/27/26 2:23 AM, James Hilliard wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 6:47 PM Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/27/26 12:59 AM, James Hilliard wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 3:28 PM Marek Vasut >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Make timeout configurable outside of the TFTP loop invocation, and store >>>>> the timeout in TFTP context. This is a preparatory patch for porting of >>>>> the DFU TFTP to LwIP, which requires a different timeout than the LwIP >>>>> default one. >>>> >>>> There seems to be substantial overlap between this series and one I >>>> recently sent, maybe take a look?: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261024-submit-lwip-tftp-combined-v1-v2-0-0f663f735...@gmail.com/ >>> That seems to be quite intrusive, is all that necessary to get the DFU >>> TFTP working with LWIP ? >> >> This is more just a bunch of general TFTP LWIP fixes, it's not exactly DFU >> specific, although I think a number of the issues had DFU implications. >> >>> Also, are all the LWIP changes being upstreamed back into LWIP or are we >>> starting to grow U-Boot specific LWIP fork that would be hard to sync >>> back with upstream LWIP ? >> >> I think I had posted a few upstream a while back but don't think I really >> got any response, is LWIP upstream not particularly active? > > +CC Simon
lwIP upstream is definitely NOT very active and it's unfortunate. For example here is a list of changes I submitted upstream, out of 5 only 1 was merged and the other got no attention whatsoever: - tftp: add support of blksize option to client Savannah [1]: opened 02-Jul-2024 — no answer GitHub [2]: opened 17-Apr-2025 — no answer - tftp: bind to TFTP port only when in server mode Savannah [3]: opened 04-Oct-2024 — still marked open, but merged via GitHub. GitHub [4]: opened 17-Apr-2025 — merged 15-Jul-2025. - altcp_tls: enforce checking of server certificates based on CA availability GitHub [5]: opened 17-Apr-2025 — no answer - altcp_tls: set errno to EPERM when handshake fails GitHub [6]: opened 23-May-2025 — no answer - icmp: allow reporting ICMP destination unreachable GitHub [7]: opened 06-Aug-2025 — no answer The project’s contribution guidelines direct contributors to submit patches through Savannah [8], while the GitHub repository describes itself as a mirror [9]; those instructions do not mention GitHub pull requests. The lwip-devel mailing list is described as a forum for development discussions [10], rather than as the recommended patch-submission channel. U-Boot increasingly needs fixes and improvements to lwIP, and like you Marek I’m concerned about maintaining a growing set of downstream patches. Although the relatively low level of upstream activity may limit divergence, carrying these changes locally could still lead to merge conflicts and additional maintenance work when updating lwIP. Should we open a discussion with the lwIP maintainers? [1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?10462 [2] https://github.com/lwip-tcpip/lwip/pull/62 [3] https://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?10480 [4] https://github.com/lwip-tcpip/lwip/pull/61 [5] https://github.com/lwip-tcpip/lwip/pull/63 [6] https://github.com/lwip-tcpip/lwip/pull/66 [7] https://github.com/lwip-tcpip/lwip/pull/73 [8] https://github.com/lwip-tcpip/lwip/blob/master/doc/contrib.txt [9] https://github.com/lwip-tcpip/lwip [10] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel Thanks, -- Jerome 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.
