From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756202AbXJJPkd (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754179AbXJJPkZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:25 -0400 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 Message-ID: <470CF25A.9050403@garzik.org> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:10 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com CC: "Darrick J. Wong" , Andrew Vasquez , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Alexis Bruemmer , James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] aic94xx: Use request_firmware() to provide SAS address if the adapter lacks one 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> In-Reply-To: <470CE78B.2080509@emulex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.9 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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