From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] aic94xx: Use request_firmware() to provide SAS address if the adapter lacks one Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:10 -0400 Message-ID: <470CF25A.9050403@garzik.org> References: <20071008212553.GI16752@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <20071008224832.GB11993@plap3.qlogic.org> <20071008235009.GB16003@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <20071009001240.GA13922@plap3.qlogic.org> <470B9E50.2090205@emulex.com> <20071009164147.GB19854@plap3.qlogic.org> <20071009170643.GE16003@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <470CE78B.2080509@emulex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:52651 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754177AbXJJPkY (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <470CE78B.2080509@emulex.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Andrew Vasquez , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Alexis Bruemmer , James Bottomley James Smart wrote: > So, what's the decision - are we only allowing this for physical adapters > that don't have a name ? or are we allowing it to be more dynamic ? At a minimum, I think(?) we all agree that current upstream aic94xx behavior is nice: allow the admin to override the WWN manually, even if the adapter already has one. As to the question of request_firmware() versus sysfs, it's IMO largely a question of taste -- do you like the "get property" on-demand pull model, or a push model that presumes the property must be set before it is needed? And which solution requires the least amount of additional userspace machinery in order to be usable? Jeff