On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03:52AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (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.
I figured, that is the intended functionality now.
Luis
