Re: Could we have request_firmware_nowait with FW_OPT_NO_WARN?

[RafaÅ MiÅecki]

On 12 December 2016 at 15:07, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:53:38AM +0100, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>> On 12 December 2016 at 10:26, Arend Van Spriel
>> <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 12-12-2016 9:32, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>> >> On 12 December 2016 at 09:12, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 2016-12-10 at 16:54 +0100, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>> >>>> In brcmfmac we use request_firmware_nowait and if fetching firmware
>> >>>> with NVRAM variables fails then we try to fallback to the platform
>> >>>> one (see brcmf_fw_request_code_done & brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Some problem for us is that on devices with platform NVRAM we get
>> >>>> this error:
>> >>>> Direct firmware load for brcm/brcmfmac43602-pcie.txt failed with error -2
>> >>>
>> >>> This also happens with iwlwifi, because it requests multiple firmware
>> >>> versions starting at the most recent supported one (which is often not
>> >>> released at the same time).
>> >>
>> >> Good to know it may help others as well!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> So yeah, this would be really useful - why don't you just make a patch
>> >>> with some kind of flags, whether it's FW_OPT_* or new flags?
>> >>
>> >> OK! If noone will come with any special comments/ideas soon, I'll
>> >> propose a patch for using some flags.
>> >>
>> >> FWIW, meanwhile I submitted
>> >> [PATCH V2] firmware: simplify defining and handling FW_OPT_FALLBACK
>> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9469875/
>> >
>> > Similar thread couple of months ago [1]
>> >
>> > (...)
>> >
>> > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2016-July/thread.html#8026
>>
>> Oh, now I see it's a bit messy topic and not clearly maintained class.
>> It seems more ppl were confused by the API. I think having many
>> unrelated behavior bounded to few functions caused some of this
>> confusion. Let's hope adding some flags will let us use function the
>> way they were designed, I'll definitely try working on this.
>
> 4.9 was just released, this means the merge window opened and no functional
> changes will be merged for a while. I'll revamp my new API whcih would allow
> what you describe to be an add-on flag without having to extend the API with
> yet another series of exported symbols just for a new option. I'll also
> CC you on a documentation revamp because as you note its much needed.

I started working on request_firmware_async with "unsigned int
opt_flags" argument and making request_firmware_nowait an inline
function just passing proper flags.

Well, I guess it's always disappointing having to drop your work, but
let it be... Please Cc me with your patches as well as documentation
update.

-- 
RafaÅ