Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

From: "Coelho, Luciano" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 05:55:18 +0000

On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 08:23 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > > +int request_firmware_nowait(struct module *module, bool uevent,
> > > +			    const char *name, struct device *device, gfp_t gfp,
> > > +			    void *context,
> > > +			    void (*cont)(const struct firmware *fw, void *context))
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned int opt_flags = FW_OPT_FALLBACK |
> > > +		(uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER);
> > > +
> > > +	return __request_firmware_nowait(module, opt_flags, name, device, gfp,
> > > +					 context, cont);
> > > +}
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(request_firmware_nowait);
> > >  
> > > +int __request_firmware_async(struct module *module, const char *name,
> > > +			     struct firmware_opts *fw_opts, struct device *dev,
> > > +			     void *context,
> > > +			     void (*cont)(const struct firmware *fw, void *context))
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned int opt_flags = FW_OPT_UEVENT;
> > 
> > This exposes a long issue. Think -- why do we want this enabled by default? Its
> > actually because even though the fallback stuff is optional and can be, the uevent
> > internal flag *also* provides caching support as a side consequence only. We
> > don't want to add a new API without first cleaning up that mess.
> > 
> > This is a slipery slope and best to clean that up before adding any new API.
> > 
> > That and also Greg recently stated he would like to see at least 3 users of
> > a feature before adding it. Although I think that's pretty arbitrary, and
> > considering that request_firmware_into_buf() only has *one* user -- its what
> > he wishes.
> 
> ath10k at least needs a way to silence the warning for missing firmware
> and I think iwlwifi also.

Yes, iwlwifi needs to silence the warning.  It the feature (only one,
really) that I've been waiting for.

--
Luca.