From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751445AbdA0V1r (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48748 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751178AbdA0V1P (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:27:08 +0100 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: Greg KH , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Ming Lei , Borislav Petkov , wagi@monom.org, Tom Gundersen , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Vikram Mulukutla , Stephen Boyd , Mark Brown , zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Takashi Iwai , Johannes Berg , Christian Lamparter , Hauke Mehrtens , Josh Boyer , Dmitry Torokhov , David Woodhouse , jslaby@suse.com, Linus Torvalds , luto@amacapital.net, Fengguang Wu , Richard Purdie , Jacek Anaszewski , Abhay_Salunke@dell.com, Julia Lawall , Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr, nicolas.palix@imag.fr, dhowells@redhat.com, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, Arend Van Spriel , Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] p54: convert to sysdata API Message-ID: <20170127212708.GC24047@wotan.suse.de> References: <20170112150244.12700-4-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170119113857.GQ28024@kroah.com> <20170119162751.GJ13946@wotan.suse.de> <20170126215005.GU13946@wotan.suse.de> <20170127074706.GA31112@kroah.com> <20170127140731.GB8206@kroah.com> <20170127143052.GA18706@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:39:36PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 15:30, Greg KH 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 (maintainer:FIRMWARE LOADER (request_firmware)) > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" (maintainer:FIRMWARE LOADER (request_firmware)) > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (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