Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

[RafaÅ MiÅecki]

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.

To be honest after seeing this big & more complex driver data API I just
gave up and decided I don't care about false problem reports that much 
:(