Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] p54: convert to sysdata API

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:39:36PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 27 January 2017 at 15:30, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:14:14PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >> > Does that patch really "simplify" anything?  Anyway, resend it if the
> >> > maintainer of the subsystem ignores it (you did cc: the correct people,
> >> > right?)
> >>
> >> According to the MAINTAINERS there isn't firmware API tree /
> >> maintainer. Also this is just a cleanup so I don't know if I should
> >> expect some random maintainer (e.g. wireless tree) to pick it.
> >
> > I don't think you looked very hard:
> >
> >  $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> >  Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com> (maintainer:FIRMWARE LOADER (request_firmware))
> >  "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> (maintainer:FIRMWARE LOADER (request_firmware))
> >  Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> (supporter:DRIVER CORE, KOBJECTS, DEBUGFS, KERNFS AND SYSFS)
> >  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list:FIRMWARE LOADER (request_firmware))
> >
> > Please try again...
> 
> My memory totally failed me :( Sorry

I was eventually copied on the patch but there was also a side discussion on
you wanting FW_OPT_NO_WARN. Can you review if the proposed driver_data API does
what I think you wanted. Although request_firmware_direct() only avoids warning
on a sync all the diver_data API also supports this for async calls. If its
something else I'd prefer we evaluate extending the driver_data API before
loosely adding yet another API call using the old API.

  Luis