Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] firmware_loader: introduce new API - request_firmware_direct_full_path()

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@intel.com>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
	Ong Boon Leong <boon.leong.ong@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>, Roy Franz <roy.franz@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] firmware_loader: introduce new API - request_firmware_direct_full_path()
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:18:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150414161833.GE14069@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrW_aXJ1iiXCa6aTE3r3J3EF_Njn5bb9=At_3ajCzPFSPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:56:26AM -0400, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> This is why I think that the right approach would be to avoid using
> firmware_class entirely for this.  IMO a simple_char device would be
> the way to go (hint hint...) but other simple approaches are certainly
> possible.

Btw, didn't mfleming want to try using capsules for other funky stuff
like early logging and pstore-like logging in panic time so that we can
read out crash data on the next boot?

Which would mean that capsules would need a completely different
interface, something new for shuffling lotsa binary data in and out of
the kernel and in and out of the UEFI...

Which would make the firmware_class thing completely inappropriate for
that.

Hmmm?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--