Shreeya Patel <[email protected]> writes:
> On 11/05/21 10:05 am, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:17:00AM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:
>>> Theodore / Christoph, since we haven't come up with any final decision with
>>> this discussion, how do you think we should proceed on this?
>> I think loading it as a firmware-like table is much preferable to
>> a module with all the static call magic papering over that it really is
>> just one specific table.
>
>
> Christoph, I get you point here but request_firmware API requires a
> device pointer and I don't
> see anywhere it being NULL so I am not sure if we are going in the right
> way by loading the data as firmware like table.
I wasn't going to really oppose it from being a firmware but this
detail, if required, makes the whole firmware idea more awkward. If the
whole reason to make it a firmware is to avoid the module boilerplate,
this is just different boilerplate. Once again, I don't know about
precedent of kernel data as a module, and there is the problem with
Makefile rules to install this stuff, that I mentioned.
We know we can get rid of the static call stuff already, since we likely
won't support more encodings anyway, so that would simplify a lot the
module specific code.
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi