On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:48:45AM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > > Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 10:26:25 AM, you wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > We really should be asking Luis to look at this who hasn't yet chimed > > in, presumably because he's between jobs (and travelling IIRC) > > > On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 10:16 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >> On 12/17/2013 11:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > We have literally had this *exact* same issue with firmware loading. > >> > Network drivers shouldn't try to load firmware at module load time. > >> > Same deal. > >> > >> It is kind of a chicken and egg problem for (wireless) networking > >> drivers. To get IFF_UP from the network layer you have to register a > >> netdevice. For wireless drivers this means you have to register a wiphy > >> device with cfg80211 which flags capabilities and optionally are custom > >> regulatory domain. That information depends on the device and firmware > >> used. And there we have a full circle. > > > This is all really beside the point. > > > For this CRDA information, the kernel never actually *waits* for it, so > > in the case that there's no reply, it uses the built-in world domain. So > > it's not like request_firmware(), which will block boot forever, but > > it's also not like request_firmware_nowait() which will eventually time > > out and come back with an error if userspace isn't handling it (though > > now that firmware loading is built in ...) > > > The issue is that it uses the built-in data *forever*, and what Sander > > said was "or it will block forever" but just meant that it never was > > able to do any further updates. > > > It *doesn't* actually block the boot process or such. Everything Linus > > said is true but seems to have been written in understanding "blocks" as > > "blocking the boot process", rather than "blocking further updates". > > > Regardless of this, even blocking further updates is a really bad idea. > > There are a few ways to handle this, but I'll let Luis poke at that. > > Your description is correct, sorry if I was not clear. We have a timeout handler for this, I'll check to see what's going on by trying to reproduce on my end. Are you using wireless-testing ? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
