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

Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-26T21:29:51Z

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:19:07PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 2017-06-26 19:33, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:39:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > There are still other requirements and features in the pipeline for which we
> > > > can consider parameters to parse for, rather than adding new API. Case in
> > > > point, do we want *one* API just to disable the firmware cache? Specially
> > > > knowing that another feature in the pipeline later would make use of this as a
> > > > requirement?
> > >
> > > Again, I do not care! You can not justify patches today with some
> > > mythical thing in the future that might never even happen.
> >
> > Granting the option to make async firmware optional was discussed since
> > December 2016 by RafaÅ [1]. It was only later during my driver data API
> > changes that Hans noted the nvram part was actually *not* optional [2] so
> > this requirement dropped. *However* as the maintainer I believ ethis
> > requirement *is sensible* and would not be surprised if alternative
> > firmware already exists where this is what is intended.
>
> I believe there was a misunderstanding of my patch by Hans. The point of my
> patch was to don't display warning *IF* we can use alternative soruce and
> get the NVRAM (firmware) from platform data (special partition used by the
> bootloader and accessible by the operating system).

Oh, are you saying the optional async firmware loading is still a requirement
for this driver? Are you, Hans, and Arend Van Spriel in agreement on this?

If so then that definitely makes 3 effective changes in my radar for extensions
to the firmware API.

Luis