Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751837AbdFZV3v (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:29:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42885 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751381AbdFZV3o (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:29:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:29:41 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Greg KH , Vikram Mulukutla , Stephen Boyd , Linus Torvalds , Julia Lawall , Daniel Wagner , David Woodhouse , Arend Van Spriel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Li, Yi" , atull@opensource.altera.com, Moritz Fischer , Petr Mladek , Johannes Berg , Emmanuel Grumbach , "Coelho, Luciano" , Kalle Valo , Andrew Lutomirski , Jiri Kosina , Kees Cook , "AKASHI, Takahiro" , David Howells , Peter Jones , Hans de Goede , Alan Cox , "Theodore Ts'o" , NeilBrown , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params Message-ID: <20170626212941.GF21846@wotan.suse.de> References: <20170613194011.GI27288@wotan.suse.de> <20170617193815.GI2974@kroah.com> <20170619193522.GH21846@wotan.suse.de> <20170623155123.GB3565@kroah.com> <20170623224338.GX21846@wotan.suse.de> <20170624004828.GA21846@wotan.suse.de> <20170624123951.GA10622@kroah.com> <20170626173328.GC21846@wotan.suse.de> 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: 1669 Lines: 31 On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:19:07PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 2017-06-26 19:33, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:39:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > There are still other requirements and features in the pipeline for which we > > > > can consider parameters to parse for, rather than adding new API. Case in > > > > point, do we want *one* API just to disable the firmware cache? Specially > > > > knowing that another feature in the pipeline later would make use of this as a > > > > requirement? > > > > > > Again, I do not care! You can not justify patches today with some > > > mythical thing in the future that might never even happen. > > > > Granting the option to make async firmware optional was discussed since > > December 2016 by RafaÅ [1]. It was only later during my driver data API > > changes that Hans noted the nvram part was actually *not* optional [2] so > > this requirement dropped. *However* as the maintainer I believ ethis > > requirement *is sensible* and would not be surprised if alternative > > firmware already exists where this is what is intended. > > I believe there was a misunderstanding of my patch by Hans. The point of my > patch was to don't display warning *IF* we can use alternative soruce and > get the NVRAM (firmware) from platform data (special partition used by the > bootloader and accessible by the operating system). Oh, are you saying the optional async firmware loading is still a requirement for this driver? Are you, Hans, and Arend Van Spriel in agreement on this? If so then that definitely makes 3 effective changes in my radar for extensions to the firmware API. Luis