Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

Greg KH
2017-06-13T15:50:50Z

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:32:49PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:17:43PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:31:04PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > > On 2017-06-13 11:05, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:39:33PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > As the firmware API evolves we keep extending functions with more
> > > > > arguments.
> > > > > Stop this nonsense by proving an extensible data structure which can
> > > > > be used
> > > > > to represent both user parameters and private internal parameters.
> > > >
> > > > Let's take a simple C function interface and make it a more complex
> > > > data-driven interface that is impossible to understand and obviously
> > > > understand how it is to be used and works!
> > > >
> > > > :(
> > > >
> > > > Seriously, why? Why are we extending any of this at all? This series
> > > > adds a ton of new "features" and complexity, but for absolutely no gain.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I take it back, you removed 29 lines from the iwlwifi driver.
> > > >
> > > > That's still not worth it at all, you have yet to sell me on this whole
> > > > complex beast. I can't see why we need it, and if I, one of the few
> > > > people who thinks they actually understand this kernel interface, can't
> > > > see it, how can you sell it to someone else?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but no, I'm still not going to take this series until you show
> > > > some _REAL_ benefit for it.
> > >
> > > FWIW I saw (or maybe still see?) a need to extend request_firmware* API to
> > > allow silencing a warning if firmware file is missing.
> > >
> > > I even sent a trivial patch adding support for this:
> > > [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9588787/
> > > (I think it still applies) but it got rejected due to Luis's big rework.
> >
> > Can you resend this series if it still does apply?
>
> FWIW just some notes on Rafał's series:
>
> someone else brought up second that his second no longer should be applied as
> some devices do need what seems to be today's optional request. Also note that
> the approach follows the same I take, just struct a firmware_opts instead of
> driver params... and it does not mesh up the old options as I did in my first
> patch in this series.

As I have no idea what his series looks like at the moment, why not wait
until they are posted again to review them? :)

thanks,

greg k-h