Hi Luis,
On 2019-08-22 2:12 p.m., Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 01:07:41PM -0700, Scott Branden wrote:
On 2019-08-22 12:47 p.m., Luis Chamberlain wrote:
This implies you having to change the other callers, and while currently
our list of drivers is small,
Yes, the list is small, very small.
There is a single driver making a call to the existing API.
And, the maintainer of that driver wanted
to start utilizing my enhanced API instead of the current API.
You mean in the near term future? Your change makes it use the full file.
Just checking.
The change in the patch keeps the existing functionality in the
qcom mdt_loader by reading the full file using the enhanced api.
I don't know when Bjorn will switch to use the partial firmware load:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/27/9
As such I think it is very reasonable to update the API right now.
I'd prefer to see it separate, and we fix the race *before* we introduce
the new functionality. I'll be poking at that shortly but I should note
that I leave on vacation this weekend and won't be back for a good while.
I already have an idea of how to approach this.
When the current user want to use the new API it can do so, and then we
just kill the older caller.
We can kill the older api right now as my patch in qcom mdt_loader
calls the new API which allows reading of full or partial files?
following the history of the firmware API
and the long history of debate of *how* we should evolve its API, its
preferred we add yet another new caller for this functionality. So
please add a new caller, and use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
And while at it, pleaase use firmware_request_*() as the prefix, as we
have want to use that as the instilled prefix. We have yet to complete
the rename of the others older callers but its just a matter of time.
So something like: firmware_request_into_buf_offset()
I would prefer to rename the API at this time given there is only a single
user.
Otherwise I would need to duplicate quite a bit in the test code to support
testing the single user of the old api and then enhanced API.
Or, I can leave existing API in place and change the test case to
just test the enhanced API to keep things simpler in the test code?
If the new user is going to move to the API once available I will be
happy to then leave out testing for the older API. That would make
sense.
I have switched the single user of the existing api to the new
API in the patch already? And both full and partial reads using
the new API are tested with this patch series. If you really insist
on keeping the old API for a single user I can drop that change from the
patch series and have the old request_firmware_api call simply
be a wrapper calling the new API.
But if you do want to keep testing for the old API, and allow an easy
removal for it on the test driver, wouldn't a function pointer suffice
for which API call to use based on a boolean?
But yeah if we're going to abandon the old mechanism I'm happy to skip
its te
We can skip right now then. As enhanced API is a superset of old API.
If you want the old API left in place I can just add the wrapper
described and
only test the newly named function and thus indirectly test the old
request_firmware_into_buf.
sting.
Luis
