(sorry for the delay, this got buried in my inbox)
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
So from ath10k point of view we do not want to have any messages printed
when calling firmware_request_nowarn(). The warnings get users really
confused when ath10k is checking if an optional firmware file is
available or not.
--
Kalle Valo
