On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:39:23PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > "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, Well it doesn't have the form to use a range either so it wouldn't make sense. > 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. Thanks, I see ath10k uses the sync request_firmware() call, so indeed it would be a trivial conversion. Andres can you roll that in for your patch series? Luis
