Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754197AbdFWWrj (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:47:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44399 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753306AbdFWWri (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:47:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:47:35 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Greg KH Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , 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 List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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