Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761275AbYGOCJl (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:09:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754531AbYGOCJd (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:09:33 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:46684 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752847AbYGOCJd (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:09:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:08:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: david@lang.hm cc: Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , David Woodhouse , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel, use it in more drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1216077806.27455.85.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080714164119.99c33d5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080714165956.7fe2d4ee@infradead.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1941 Lines: 48 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > That's a totally bogus argument. > > you misunderstood me. the people pushing request_firmware() are doing so on > the basis that they won't have to use kernel ram to hold the firmware. the > people pushing for having the option of building the firmware into the module > are acknowleding that this may use a little more ram, but they see it as being > more reliable. I'm just saying that it's a totally bogus argument to claim that it takes less memory - Either way. As to reliability, I don't buy that, especially with a generic interface, and with a way to link the thing in-kernel anyway. Using common infrastructure is going to be more reliable. > > I don't know why people get confused about this. I suspect that people > > kind of expect that since they need to reload the firmware when resuming > > the device, they should also do the "request_firmware()" at resume time. > > according to David W they would, becouse the driver would not keep the > firmware in kernel memory after it's initialized And if so, David W is a total moran, and shouldn't have been doing this. The fact is, there _are_ good arguments for request_firmware(), but they have nothing what-so-ever to do with memory use or anything like that. The argument for request_firmware() is that it's a good _single_ interface to the whole firmware issue, allowing us to split up the driver from the firmware without every driver having to do some hack of its own. Not memory use. So next time you see somebody arguing about memory use (either way), just slap them, and tell them Linus told you to. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/