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

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: "Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@linaro.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"Li, Yi" <yi1.li@linux.intel.com>,
	atull@opensource.altera.com,
	Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@ettus.com>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
	Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
	"Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:29:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170626212941.GF21846@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcfffed9c20b3c5088c53d8f9882f194@milecki.pl>

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