Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/05/21 10:05 am, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:17:00AM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote: >>> Theodore / Christoph, since we haven't come up with any final decision with >>> this discussion, how do you think we should proceed on this? >> I think loading it as a firmware-like table is much preferable to >> a module with all the static call magic papering over that it really is >> just one specific table. > > > Christoph, I get you point here but request_firmware API requires a > device pointer and I don't > see anywhere it being NULL so I am not sure if we are going in the right > way by loading the data as firmware like table. I wasn't going to really oppose it from being a firmware but this detail, if required, makes the whole firmware idea more awkward. If the whole reason to make it a firmware is to avoid the module boilerplate, this is just different boilerplate. Once again, I don't know about precedent of kernel data as a module, and there is the problem with Makefile rules to install this stuff, that I mentioned. We know we can get rid of the static call stuff already, since we likely won't support more encodings anyway, so that would simplify a lot the module specific code. -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
