Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758888Ab1CCWHi (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:07:38 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:31260 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751251Ab1CCWHh (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:07:37 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,260,1297065600"; d="scan'208";a="663619512" Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:07:35 -0500 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [REVIEW] NVM Express driver Message-ID: <20110303220735.GA3663@linux.intel.com> References: <20110303204749.GY3663@linux.intel.com> <20110303211336.GA32645@kroah.com> <20110303214104.GZ3663@linux.intel.com> <20110303215155.GA30451@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110303215155.GA30451@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1839 Lines: 37 On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:51:55PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > Heh, no, well, submit_io should just go through the block layer and not > be a separate ioctl, right? Just like with SG_IO, there are reasons to do I/Os without going through the block layer. > > There's a bit of an impedence mismatch there. Think of this as > > being drive firmware instead of controller firmware. This isn't for > > request_firmware() kind of uses, it's for some admin tool to come along > > and tell the drive "Oh, here's some new firmware for you". > > That's fine, request_firmware will work wonderfully for that. How would the driver know that it should call request_firmware()? Do it every 60 seconds in case somebody's downloaded some new firmware? > > If you look at the spec [1], you'll see there are a number of firmware > > slots in the device, and it's up to the managability utility to decide > > which one to replace or activate. I dno't think you want to pull all > > that gnarly decision making code into the kernel, do you? > > > > [1] http://download.intel.com/standards/nvmhci/NVM_Express_1_0_Gold.pdf > > No, just export multiple "slots" as firmware devices ready to be filled > in by userspace whenever it wants/needs to. The management utility can > just dump the firmware to those sysfs files when it determines it needs > to update the firmware, no decision making in the kernel at all. OK ... glad we decided to limit the number of slots. I still don't see (in Documentation/firmware_class/README) how this works for user-initiated firmware updates rather than kernel-initiated. -- 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/