Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:44:34 +0200 | From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: remove request_firmware_into_buf() |
| |
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:37:11AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Mon 26 Jun 23:52 PDT 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Why would we keep it if there is no in-tree user for it? If you want it > > sometime in the future, great, we can revert the deletion then, but > > keeping it around for nothing isn't ok, you know that :) > > > > Of course I know that :) > > I did put a patch in the tubes for this yesterday [1], it's late for > v4.13, but I would be happy to see the API stay and we would have a user > in v4.14 (and tick this off Qualcomm's "required" list). > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/26/693
Greg,
What have you decided to do?
Also what is the threshold for number of drivers to use a new feature for us to add it? Note that there is a bundle of features queued up now and as per your own preference it would seem you want a new API call for each new feature...
Can you clarify that is what you wish for? Are you *certain* you want to take this approach?
Note that this patch alone was not sufficient to revert all all the stuff for request_firmware_into_buf(), there was another patch which added the option to make caching optional, but it was only used internally. Folks already have a use case for that though *and* existing upstream drivers already have a use case for that -- the iwlwifi driver is such a case, as they do their own caching for its driver.
There are similar features in the pipeline which are minor variations to requests such as optional requests -- do you *really* expect a new API call then to be created for minor variations of each major call for say optional requests or requests for without caching?
I had to think about all these things, so now I ask you to also consider this as well.
I ask how many drivers are needed as users for a feature as I think its important to be fair for the other features in the pipeline which I did start reviewing and *do* consider sensible to add support for. This was an example feature which went in with 0 users at all for a while... and now it seems we only have *one* user still...
Luis
| |