Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:47:35 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>, 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: <20170623224735.GY21846@wotan.suse.de>
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>
 <20170623155936.GC3565@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170623155936.GC3565@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1138
Lines: 23

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:59:36PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> 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.

I'm delighted to hear we can do away with the request_firmware_into_buf() crap.

> > 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.

Beautiful. Music to my ears.

  Luis