Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:50:41 +0200 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params |
| |
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:32:49PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:17:43PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:31:04PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > On 2017-06-13 11:05, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:39:33PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > As the firmware API evolves we keep extending functions with more > > > > > arguments. > > > > > Stop this nonsense by proving an extensible data structure which can > > > > > be used > > > > > to represent both user parameters and private internal parameters. > > > > > > > > Let's take a simple C function interface and make it a more complex > > > > data-driven interface that is impossible to understand and obviously > > > > understand how it is to be used and works! > > > > > > > > :( > > > > > > > > Seriously, why? Why are we extending any of this at all? This series > > > > adds a ton of new "features" and complexity, but for absolutely no gain. > > > > > > > > Oh, I take it back, you removed 29 lines from the iwlwifi driver. > > > > > > > > That's still not worth it at all, you have yet to sell me on this whole > > > > complex beast. I can't see why we need it, and if I, one of the few > > > > people who thinks they actually understand this kernel interface, can't > > > > see it, how can you sell it to someone else? > > > > > > > > Sorry, but no, I'm still not going to take this series until you show > > > > some _REAL_ benefit for it. > > > > > > FWIW I saw (or maybe still see?) a need to extend request_firmware* API to > > > allow silencing a warning if firmware file is missing. > > > > > > I even sent a trivial patch adding support for this: > > > [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9588787/ > > > (I think it still applies) but it got rejected due to Luis's big rework. > > > > Can you resend this series if it still does apply? > > FWIW just some notes on Rafał's series: > > someone else brought up second that his second no longer should be applied as > some devices do need what seems to be today's optional request. Also note that > the approach follows the same I take, just struct a firmware_opts instead of > driver params... and it does not mesh up the old options as I did in my first > patch in this series.
As I have no idea what his series looks like at the moment, why not wait until they are posted again to review them? :)
thanks,
greg k-h
| |