Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:38:17 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote: >> IIRC we discussed this back in initial rtw88 or rtw89 driver review (not >> sure which one). At the time I pushed for the current solution to have >> the initvals in static variables just to avoid any backwards >> compatibility issues. I agree that the initvals in .c files are ugly but >> is it worth all the extra effort and complexity to move them outside the >> kernel? I'm starting to lean towards it's not worth all the extra work. > > I don't think it's that much extra work, the driver requires FW > according to modinfo, anyway, so /lib/firmware is already required. > And on smaller systems with few hundred MB of RAM it'd be nice to not > hold all the stuff in kernel memory, I'd think. Later in this thread Ping explained pretty well the challenges here, that sums exactly what I'm worried about. > We have a rule against putting FW as a static table in the driver > source, right? Or did we abandon that? Isn't this fundamentally similar? My understanding is that these are just initialisation values for hardware, not executable code. (Ping, please correct me if I misunderstood.) So that's why I thought these are ok to have in kernel. So I took practicality over elegance here. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
