Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 07:18:48 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-next-2023-04-21
Message-ID: <20230425071848.6156c0a0@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87leigr06u.fsf@kernel.org>
References: <20230421104726.800BCC433D2@smtp.kernel.org>
        <20230421075404.63c04bca@kernel.org>
        <e31dae6daa6640859d12bf4c4fc41599@realtek.com>
        <87leigr06u.fsf@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:38:17 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote:
> IIRC we discussed this back in initial rtw88 or rtw89 driver review (not
> sure which one). At the time I pushed for the current solution to have
> the initvals in static variables just to avoid any backwards
> compatibility issues. I agree that the initvals in .c files are ugly but
> is it worth all the extra effort and complexity to move them outside the
> kernel? I'm starting to lean towards it's not worth all the extra work.

I don't think it's that much extra work, the driver requires FW
according to modinfo, anyway, so /lib/firmware is already required.
And on smaller systems with few hundred MB of RAM it'd be nice to not
hold all the stuff in kernel memory, I'd think.

We have a rule against putting FW as a static table in the driver
source, right? Or did we abandon that? Isn't this fundamentally similar?

> For me most important is that backwards compatibility is not broken,
> that would be bad for the users. So whatever we decide let's keep that
> in mind.

Right, not for existing devices, only when new device is added.