Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: 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
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:05:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170613090548.GA31421@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170605213937.26215-2-mcgrof@kernel.org>

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:39:33PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> As the firmware API evolves we keep extending functions with more arguments.
> Stop this nonsense by proving an extensible data structure which can be used
> to represent both user parameters and private internal parameters.

Let's take a simple C function interface and make it a more complex
data-driven interface that is impossible to understand and obviously
understand how it is to be used and works!

:(

Seriously, why?  Why are we extending any of this at all?  This series
adds a ton of new "features" and complexity, but for absolutely no gain.

Oh, I take it back, you removed 29 lines from the iwlwifi driver.

That's still not worth it at all, you have yet to sell me on this whole
complex beast.  I can't see why we need it, and if I, one of the few
people who thinks they actually understand this kernel interface, can't
see it, how can you sell it to someone else?

Sorry, but no, I'm still not going to take this series until you show
some _REAL_ benefit for it.

thanks,

greg k-h