On July 30, 2016 5:42:41 AM PDT, Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspr...@broadcom.com> wrote: >+ Luis (again) ;-) > >On 29-07-16 08:13, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> On 07/28/2016 09:01 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Thu 28 Jul 11:33 PDT 2016, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 09:55:11AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: >>>>> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wag...@bmw-carit.de> >>>>> >>> [..] >>>> >>>> Do not quite like it... I'd rather asynchronous request give out a >>>> firmware status pointer that could be used later on. > >Excellent. Why not get rid of the callback function as well and have >fw_loading_wait() return result (0 = firmware available, < 0 = fail). >Just to confirm, you are proposing a new API function next to >request_firmware_nowait(), right?
Yes, that would be a new API call. Maybe we could replace old API with the new at some point. >>>> pcu->fw_st = request_firmware_async(IMS_PCU_FIRMWARE_NAME, >>>> - pcu, >>>> - ims_pcu_process_async_firmware); > + pcu); >>>> if (IS_ERR(pcu->fw_st)) >>>> return PTR_ERR(pcu->fw_st); >>>> >>>> .... >>>> >>>> err = fw_loading_wait(pcu->fw_st); > if (err) > return err; > > fw = fwstat_get_firmware(pcu->fw_st); > >Or whatever consistent prefix it is going to be. > >>>> >>> >>> In the remoteproc case (patch 6) this would clean up the code, >rather >>> than replacing the completion API 1 to 1. I like it! >> >> IIRC most drivers do it the same way. So request_firmware_async() >indeed >> would be good thing to have. Let me try that. > >While the idea behind this series is a good one I am wondering about >the >need for these drivers to use the asynchronous API. The historic reason >might be to avoid timeout caused by user-mode helper, but that may no >longer apply and these drivers could be better off using >request_firmware_direct(). Actually systems using this driver rely on usermode helper to provide necessary delay and load the firmware from storage once root partition is mounted. Converting to request_firmware_direct() would break them. Thanks. -- Dmitry
