Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752827AbcLLOHo (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:07:44 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57737 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751640AbcLLOHn (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:07:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:07:39 +0100 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: Arend Van Spriel , Johannes Berg , Ming Lei , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , brcm80211 development Subject: Re: Could we have request_firmware_nowait with FW_OPT_NO_WARN? Message-ID: <20161212140739.GB1402@wotan.suse.de> References: <1481530339.4067.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <815a15b6-f22d-8c45-f76c-2c756f159366@broadcom.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 Content-Length: 2298 Lines: 50 On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:53:38AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 12 December 2016 at 10:26, Arend Van Spriel > wrote: > > On 12-12-2016 9:32, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> On 12 December 2016 at 09:12, Johannes Berg wrote: > >>> On Sat, 2016-12-10 at 16:54 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >>>> In brcmfmac we use request_firmware_nowait and if fetching firmware > >>>> with NVRAM variables fails then we try to fallback to the platform > >>>> one (see brcmf_fw_request_code_done & brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done). > >>>> > >>>> Some problem for us is that on devices with platform NVRAM we get > >>>> this error: > >>>> Direct firmware load for brcm/brcmfmac43602-pcie.txt failed with error -2 > >>> > >>> This also happens with iwlwifi, because it requests multiple firmware > >>> versions starting at the most recent supported one (which is often not > >>> released at the same time). > >> > >> Good to know it may help others as well! > >> > >> > >>> So yeah, this would be really useful - why don't you just make a patch > >>> with some kind of flags, whether it's FW_OPT_* or new flags? > >> > >> OK! If noone will come with any special comments/ideas soon, I'll > >> propose a patch for using some flags. > >> > >> FWIW, meanwhile I submitted > >> [PATCH V2] firmware: simplify defining and handling FW_OPT_FALLBACK > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9469875/ > > > > Similar thread couple of months ago [1] > > > > (...) > > > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2016-July/thread.html#8026 > > Oh, now I see it's a bit messy topic and not clearly maintained class. > It seems more ppl were confused by the API. I think having many > unrelated behavior bounded to few functions caused some of this > confusion. Let's hope adding some flags will let us use function the > way they were designed, I'll definitely try working on this. 4.9 was just released, this means the merge window opened and no functional changes will be merged for a while. I'll revamp my new API whcih would allow what you describe to be an add-on flag without having to extend the API with yet another series of exported symbols just for a new option. I'll also CC you on a documentation revamp because as you note its much needed. Luis