Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1675117
| From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params |
| Date | 2017-06-26 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tWJTI-7Ec-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <tVFSa-8si-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tVHqV-Nn-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tVSFH-7Sm-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tWG9s-5iW-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <tWJ7j-75V-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-06-23 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-06-24 00:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-06-24 01:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-06-24 02:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-06-24 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-06-26 19:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> - 2017-06-26 22:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-06-26 23:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org> - 2017-06-27 04:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-06-27 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-06-24 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-06-26 18:00 +0200
csiph-web