Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1602142 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

Started byRafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
First post2017-03-16 11:00 +0100
Last post2017-03-16 14:50 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 11:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible  request_firmware_async function Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-03-16 14:50 +0100

#1602142 — Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

FromRafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-16 11:00 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function
Message-ID<tlAmm-4QJ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 23 February 2017 at 19:30, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>
> So far we got only one function for loading firmware asynchronously:
> request_firmware_nowait. It didn't allow much customization of firmware
> loading process - there is only one bool uevent argument. Moreover this
> bool also controls user helper in an unclear way.
>
> Resolve this problem by adding one internally shared  function that
> allows specifying any flags manually.
>
> This implementation:
> 1) Allows keeping old request_firmware_nowait API unchanged
> 2) Doesn't require adjusting / rewriting current drivers
> 3) Minimizes risk of regressions
> 4) Adds new function for drivers that need more control over loading a
>    firmware.
>
> The new function takes options struct pointer as an argument to make
> further improvements possible (without any big reworks).
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
> V3: Don't expose all FW_OPT_* flags.
>     As Luis noted we want a struct so add struct firmware_opts for real
>     flexibility.
>     Thank you Luis for your review!
>
> Ming/Luis/Greg: assuming this gets a positive review, could someone of you pick
> this patchset?

Ping. I hope it's relatively simple and non-intrusive change with a
proper design now.

Is there some who could pick this small patchset?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1602289 — Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

FromGreg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2017-03-16 14:50 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function
Message-ID<tlDWW-7vw-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1602142
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:57:00AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 23 February 2017 at 19:30, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >
> > So far we got only one function for loading firmware asynchronously:
> > request_firmware_nowait. It didn't allow much customization of firmware
> > loading process - there is only one bool uevent argument. Moreover this
> > bool also controls user helper in an unclear way.
> >
> > Resolve this problem by adding one internally shared  function that
> > allows specifying any flags manually.
> >
> > This implementation:
> > 1) Allows keeping old request_firmware_nowait API unchanged
> > 2) Doesn't require adjusting / rewriting current drivers
> > 3) Minimizes risk of regressions
> > 4) Adds new function for drivers that need more control over loading a
> >    firmware.
> >
> > The new function takes options struct pointer as an argument to make
> > further improvements possible (without any big reworks).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> > ---
> > V3: Don't expose all FW_OPT_* flags.
> >     As Luis noted we want a struct so add struct firmware_opts for real
> >     flexibility.
> >     Thank you Luis for your review!
> >
> > Ming/Luis/Greg: assuming this gets a positive review, could someone of you pick
> > this patchset?
> 
> Ping. I hope it's relatively simple and non-intrusive change with a
> proper design now.
> 
> Is there some who could pick this small patchset?

It would be nice if the firmware maintainer could review it, I can't do
anything with this until then...

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web