Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:48:14 +0900 | From | AKASHI Takahiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params |
| |
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 05:51:08PM -0500, Li, Yi wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 6/17/2017 2:38 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:40:11PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:05:48AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:39:33PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > >>What you have to ask yourself really is if this makes it *less complex* and > >>helps *clean things up* in a much better way than it was before. Also does it > >>allow us to *pave the way for new functionality easily*, without creating > >>further mess? > > > >I agree, that's what I'm saying here. I just do not see that happening > >with your patch set at all. It's adding more code, a more complex way > >to interact with the subsystem, and not making driver writer lives any > >easier at all that I can see. > > > >Again, the code is now bigger, does more, with not even any real benefit > >for existing users. > > I am still new to the upstreaming world, pardon me if my understanding is > naive. :) My take with Luis's driver data API is that it adds a wrapper on > top of the old request_firmware APIs, so the new features can be > added/disabled by the parameters structures instead of adding/changing API > functions. Agree that there is not much new for existing users. It adds more > codes (not necessary more complex) but create a consistent way for extension > IMO.
Most of code of my feature, firmware signing, is implemented in common place between old and new APIs, while only new API has a parameter, DRIVER_DATA_REQ_NO_SIG_CHECK, which allow users to enable/disable this feature per-driver-datum. Simple enough.
So what matters is adding yet another variant of request_firmware_xx() vs. adding a mere parameter?
Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI
> Below are 3 examples I tried to add streaming support to load large firmware > files. > Adding streaming with driver data API: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9738503 . This patch series depends on > non-cache patch series https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9793825 , which is > bigger than it should be since it added some codes to test firmware caching. > and pre-allocate buffer patch series > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9738487/ > > By comparison, here is my old streaming RFC with original firmware class: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/9/872 > Do you think this is the better way? > > Thanks, > Yi
| |