Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 May 2003 10:54:24 +0200 | From | Manuel Estrada Sainz <> | Subject | Re: request_firmware() hotplug interface, third round. |
| |
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 02:47:44PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:59:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Manuel Estrada Sainz wrote: > > > > > - Driver calls request_firmware() > > > > > > > > Yeah, I agree with your comment in the code, I think a struct device * > > > > should be passed here. Or at least somewhere... > > > > > > To make compatibility with 2.4 kernel easier, I think that I'll add a > > > new 'struct device *' parameter to request_firmware(). On 2.4 kernels > > > it can be an unused 'void *'. Does that sound too ugly? > > > > Yeah, don't use void * if you can ever help it. As there will be two > > different versions for two different kernels, just don't have that > > paramater, or make it a char * like you have now for 2.4. That seems to > > make sense for 2.4 where you don't have a struct device. > > > > > > > - 'hotplug firmware' gets called with ACCTION=add > > > > > > > > I don't see why you need to add a new environment variable in your > > > > firmware_class_hotplug() call. What is the FIRMWARE variable for, if we > > > > already have a device symlink back to the device that is asking for the > > > > firmware? Oh, you don't have that :) > > > > > > The same device can ask for different firmware images. > > > > Ah, that makes more sense now. Ok, I have no problem with it. > > Given this, would it be better to make the sysfs node name depend on > which firmware we're loading - rather than "data" always.
> I realise we could just require firmware requests for a particular > device instance to be serialised,
I think that is a pretty good assumption.
It won't be me how loads two different firmwares concurrently to the same device :)
> however my instinct says using different nodes would be more robust:
It would also complicate both kernel and userspace code.
> it will be easier to figure out what's gone wrong if a script error
For this matter, I could add a readonly 'name' which gives you the same string as $FIRMWARE. That way if something goes wrong you can easily find out which firmware image the kernel is expecting.
> or a kernel bug has resulted in attempting to load two images at once.
This will get caught, because sysfs won't allow two entries with the same name.
Thanks
Manuel
-- --- Manuel Estrada Sainz <ranty@debian.org> <ranty@bigfoot.com> <ranty@users.sourceforge.net> ------------------------ <manuel.estrada@hispalinux.es> ------------------- Let us have the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |