On July 30, 2016 9:58:17 AM PDT, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 02:42:41PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> + Luis (again) ;-) >> >> On 29-07-16 08:13, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> > On 07/28/2016 09:01 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> >> On Thu 28 Jul 11:33 PDT 2016, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 09:55:11AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> >>>> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>>> >> >> [..] >> >>> >> >>> Do not quite like it... I'd rather asynchronous request give out >a >> >>> firmware status pointer that could be used later on. >> >> Excellent. Why not get rid of the callback function as well and have >> fw_loading_wait() return result (0 = firmware available, < 0 = fail). >> Just to confirm, you are proposing a new API function next to >> request_firmware_nowait(), right? > >If proposing new firmware_class patches please bounce / Cc me, I've >recently asked for me to be added to MAINTAINERS so I get these >e-mails as I'm working on a new flexible API which would allow us >to extend the firmware API without having to care about the old >stupid usermode helper at all. I am not sure why we started calling usermode helper "stupid". We only had to implement direct kernel firmware loading because udev/stsremd folks had "interesting" ideas how events should be handled; but having userspace to feed us data is not stupid. If we want to overhaul firmware loading support we need to figure out how to support case when a driver want to [asynchronously] request firmware/config/blob and the rest of the system is not ready. Even if we want kernel to do read/load the data we need userspace to tell kernel when firmware partition is available, until then the kernel should not fail the request. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
