On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 08:45:46PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > > 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. OK I can reproduce and am working on the cleanest solution. Thanks for your report, I'll Cc ya when I have something reasonable baked up, hopefully rather soon! 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
