Re: [PATCH -net-next 1/4] firmware: convert e100 driver to request_firmware()

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:23:44 -0800

> The only testing that we were not able to do was the IPMI testing,
> because of the lack of resources.  All other testing passed.
> 
> While all other testing passed, I am concerned about not being able to
> test whether or not this change affects the ability to pass IPMI
> traffic.  I am not sure if the "gain" of using request_firmware() out
> weighs the potential risk that IPMI traffic may be broken with this
> patch.  I guess I wondering what the gain is in using the
> request_firmware() function?
> 
> >From past experience with IPMI traffic and the e100, the loading of
> the microcode in the correct manner greatly affected whether IPMI
> traffic would pass or not.

Jeff, I've lost all of my patience.

All drivers are being converted this way.  I fought against doing it
to tg3 for various reasons, but the tide worked against me and I
accepted that.

We can't hold this patch up forever for a potential problem that you
don't have the resources to even test for more than a week.

I'm therefore adding this patch, and we'll fix or revert if the
"possible" IPMI problems do surface.