"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:10:47AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 3/11/2018 5:05 PM, Andres Rodriguez wrote: >> > > Your patch series then should also have the driver callers who you >> > > want to modify to use this new API. Collect from the 802.11 folks the >> > > other drivers which I think they wanted changed as well. >> > >> > Arend, Kalle, would love to hear your feedback. >> >> I am not sure if it was ath10k, but Kalle will surely know. The other driver >> firing a whole batch of firmware requests is iwlwifi. These basically try to >> get latest firmware version and if not there try an older one. > > Ah I recall now. At least for iwlwifi its that it requests firmware with a > range of api files, and we don't need information about files in the middle > not found, given all we need to know if is if at lest one file was found > or not. > > I have future code to also enable use of a range request which would replace > the recursive nature of iwlwifi's firmware API request, so it simplifies it > considerably. > > Once we get this flag to be silent in, this can be used later. Ie, the new > API I'd add would replace the complex api revision thing for an internal set. TBH I doubt we would use this kind of "range" request in ath10k, the current code works just fine only if we can get rid of the annoying warning from request_firmware(). Unless if it's significantly faster or something. -- Kalle Valo
