On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 04:15:54PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 07:59:01AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > My concern with quirking it is that we'd have to settle on what we think > > is the worst case timeout, then it becomes compiled into that kernel for > > that device. The devices I'm dealing with are actively under > > development, and the time to ready gets bigger or smaller as updates > > occur, or some new worst case scenario is discovered. Making this a boot > > time decicion really helps with experimentation here. > > I understand, but honestly this doesn't sound like something which > needs to be in the upstream kernel. If it's for experimentation only, > I'd keep it in the downstream kernel used for experimentation > and if it turns out that 60 sec is insufficient for the final > production device, I'd submit a quirk for that. It's always a pain to carry out of tree patches. These might be devices having active development, but they are used in production and the systems they're in follow the standard kernel updates. And before this generation of devices even settles on an appropriate quirk timeout might require (if that ever happens), I have the next generations to deal with, so this need isn't going to go away. Carrying such an out of tree patch for eternity sounds unpleasant.
