On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 10:57:26PM -0400, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
> On 2018-05-03 07:42 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 04:12:02PM -0400, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
> > > Previously, one could assume the firmware name from the preceding
> > > message: "Direct firmware load for {name} failed with error %d".
> > >
> > > However, with the new firmware_request_nowarn() entrypoint, the message
> > > outlined above will not always be printed.
> >
> > I though the whole point was to not print an error message. What if
> > we want later to disable this error message? This would prove a bit
> > pointless.
> >
> > Let's discuss the exact semantics desired here. Why would only the
> > fallback be desirable here?
> >
> > Andres, Kalle?
> >
> > After we address this I'll address resubmitting this lat patch
> > along with the last one. For now I'll skip it.
>
> You are correct. I initially thought it would be useful to know that the
> usermode fallback was being triggered. And for that message to be useful we
> would need a fw name.
>
> But now that you point it out, this behaviour is inconsistent with the
> _nowarn() definition. We shouldn't have a message in the first place.
>
> So it might be better to instead have:
>
> if (!(opt_flags & FW_OPT_NO_WARN) )
> dev_warn(device, "Falling back to user helper\n");
>
> No need to add the firmware name, cause we either:
> a) FW_OPT_NO_WARN is set and no messages are printed, or
> b) FW_OPT_NO_WARN is not set and we get both messages.
>
> Yay, nay?
I welcome such a new warning but not for any of the reasons stated.
It make sense if FW_OPT_NO_WARN is not set and only because the fallback
mechanism can fail for a slew of different firmware files, and just getting
informed a failure with a fallback occurred does not tell us for which file it
failed for.
I'll add such a patch to my queue and send it off soon prior to your own
new API nowarn call.
Luis
