Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Javier, > > On 25/04/2024 10:22, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> Hello Steven, >> >>> On 13/04/2024 12:49, Andy Yan wrote: >>>> From: Andy Yan <andy.yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The firmware in the rootfs will not be accessible until we >>>> are in the SYSTEM_RUNNING state, so return EPROBE_DEFER until >>>> that point. >>>> This let the driver can load firmware when it is builtin. >>> >>> The usual solution is that the firmware should be placed in the >>> initrd/initramfs if the module is included there (or built-in). The same >>> issue was brought up regarding the powervr driver: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240109120604.603700-1-javierm@xxxxxxxxxx/T/ >>> >>> I'm not sure if that ever actually reached a conclusion though. The >>> question was deferred to Greg KH but I didn't see Greg actually getting >>> involved in the thread. >>> >> >> Correct, there was not conclusion reached in that thread. > > So I think we need a conclusion before we start applying point fixes to > individual drivers. > Agreed. [...] >> >> In the thread you referenced I suggested to add that logic in request_firmware() >> (or add a new request_firmware_defer() helper function) that changes the request >> firmare behaviour to return -EPROBE_DEFER instead of -ENOENT. > > That would seem like a good feature if it's agreed that deferring on > request_firmware is a good idea. > Yeah. I didn't attempt to type that patch because didn't get an answer from Greg and didn't want to spent the time writing and testing a patch to just be nacked. >> Since as you mentioned, this isn't specific to panthor and an issue that I also >> faced with the powervr driver. > > I'm not in any way against the idea of deferring the probe until the > firmware is around - indeed it seems like a very sensible idea in many > respects. But I don't want panthor to be 'special' in this way. > > If the consensus is that the firmware should live with the module (i.e. > either both in the initramfs or both in the rootfs) then the code is > fine as it is. That seemed to be the view of Sima in that thread and > seems reasonable to me - why put the .ko in the initrd if you can't > actually use it until the rootfs comes along? > That's indeed a sensible position for me as well and is what I answered to the user who reported the powervr issue. -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
