Subject: Re: PHY firmware update method

From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:29:04 +0000

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 05:10:08PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2023-01-24 21:42, schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> > One device being slow to probe will slow down the probe of that
> > bus. But probe of other busses should be unaffected. I _guess_ it
> > might have a global affect on EPROBE_DEFER, the next cycle could be
> > delayed?  Probably a question for GregKH, or reading the code.
> > 
> > If it going to be really slow, then i would suggest making use of
> > devlink and it being a user initiated operation.
> 
> One concern which raised internally was that you'll always do
> the update (unconditionally) if there is a newer version. You seem
> to make life easier for the user, because the update just runs
> automatically. OTHO, what if a user doesn't want to update (for
> whatever reason) to the particular version in linux-firmware.git.
> I'm undecided on that.

On one hand, the user should always be asked whether they want to
upgrade the firmware on their systems, but there is the argument
about whether a user has sufficient information to make an informed
choice about it.

Then there's the problem that a newer firmware might introduce a
bug, but the user wants to use an older version (which is something
I do with some WiFi setups, and it becomes a pain when linux-firmware
is maintained by the distro, but you don't want to use that provided
version.

I really don't like the idea of the kernel automatically updating
non-volatile firmware - that sounds to me like a recipe for all
sorts of disasters.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!