Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 8:43:28 PM, you wrote: > 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 ? Originally 3.13-rc4, after that i tried with 3.13-rc4 with wireless-next pulled on top of it (since there were major changes to reg.c) but the problem occurs with both. > 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
