Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:59:36 +0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: wagi@monom.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, rafal@milecki.pl,
        arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        yi1.li@linux.intel.com, atull@opensource.altera.com,
        moritz.fischer@ettus.com, pmladek@suse.com, johannes.berg@intel.com,
        emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com, luciano.coelho@intel.com,
        kvalo@codeaurora.org, luto@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        pjones@redhat.com, hdegoede@redhat.com, alan@linux.intel.com,
        tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params
Message-ID: <20170623155936.GC3565@kroah.com>
References: <20170605213314.GR8951@wotan.suse.de>
 <20170605213937.26215-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20170605213937.26215-2-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20170613090548.GA31421@kroah.com>
 <20170613194011.GI27288@wotan.suse.de>
 <20170617193815.GI2974@kroah.com>
 <20170619193522.GH21846@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170619193522.GH21846@wotan.suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1018
Lines: 22

To respond to one issue in your wall-of-text response:

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:35:22PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> You may argue that *one* upstream users is not sufficient to introduce a new
> feature for, but I disagree given we have had new full *API* added for a new
> feature on the firmware API even for drivers THAT ARE NOT UPSTREAM! For
> instance request_firmware_into_buf() has no upstream users!!!

That's not acceptable at all, I'll send a patch after this to remove
that.  We don't keep apis around with no in-kernel users, you know this.

> Now, you might say that even though this is true that there many users of
> out-of-tree drivers that need this. While true, if this is the bar we'd go
> with, we can't then ignore the iwlwifi userbase, and the possible gains of
> having a proper non-recursive use of the daisy chained requests.

Nope, I don't care about out-of-tree drivers as we have no idea what is
going on there at all.  I've always had this position.

Patch forthcoming.

greg k-h