Re: [PATCH] firmware: wake all waiters

[Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>]

On Tue 27 Jun 12:08 PDT 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:59:15AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue 27 Jun 11:03 PDT 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > [..]
> > > Let's consider a crazy case where the uevent gets triggered, and userspace goes
> > > and signals Elon Musk somehow to transmit the needed firmware from Mars through
> > > a serial satellite link to earth, and somehow someday the device is finally
> > > ready to upload firmware from userspace. Once Elon's firmware lands home, we
> > > know all needed firmware has arrived so anything missing we can acknowledge now
> > > as missing, so we upload what we can and kick firmward into final-mode to tell
> > > the kernel we know we're really ready and any pending things will have to be
> > > given up.
> > > 
> > > This would prove the custom fallback crap was also never needed.
> > > 
> > 
> > Are you saying that each kernel driver should be written so that it will
> > either do direct loading or use firmwared?
> 
> Hell No! You can fork firmwared or use whatever the hell bin-foo you want.
> Even if its proprietary and glued with evil rainbow unicorns on it.  The dual
> mode, best-effort mode and final-mode devices it implemented are key to what
> you want to mimic as an example to achieve the goal in question.
> 

I'm sorry but your language is totally inappropriate and the reason why
I tend to stay away from firmware-related discussions.

> Please give that thought / architecture solution a spin and let me know if
> it suffices for your needs.
> 

Which solution do you refer to here?

But as I said, in my view, the decision of making the kernel depend on a
user space firmware loading mechanism or direct loading should be that
of the system designer - not the kernel.

Regards,
Bjorn