Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Allow non-default names for IFS image

From: Hans de Goede
Date: Sun Jul 10 2022 - 12:09:54 EST


On 7/10/22 18:04, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
> On 7/10/2022 7:08 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>> On 7/10/22 15:53, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 03:42:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On 7/10/22 12:15, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 11:34:40AM -0700, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/2022 8:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 08:19:38AM -0700, Jithu Joseph wrote:
>>>>>>>> Existing implementation limits IFS image to be loaded only from
>>>>> Ick, you are overloading an existing sysfs file to do different things
>>>>> based on random stuff. This is a brand-new api that you are already
>>>>> messing with in crazy ways. Why not just revert the whole thing and
>>>>> start over as obviously this was not tested well with real devices.
>>>>> And what is wrong with a firmware file called '1'? :)
>>>> Actually the Intel IFS stuff has landed in 5.19-rc# so it is
>>>> a bit late(ish) for dropping it now.
>>> We can mark it BROKEN right now before -final happens as it seems that
>>> the api in 5.19-rc is not correct for its users.
>>> Perhaps we should do that now to give people the chance to get it right?
>> That is a good idea. I've just send out a patch doing that.
>> I plan to submit one last pdx86 fixes pull-req to Linus once rc6 is out
>> (prepping it now and want to give the builders some time to build test it).
>> I'll include this in this fixes pull-req.
> I did send a v2 just now, which removes treating 1 specially. Not sure
> if it is too late, but just wanted to give it a shot

The v2 patch does look better to me, thanks.

But IMHO it is not good idea to fix userspace API issues during or
after rc6. So lets keep this marked as broken in Kconfig for 5.19 final
and then we can get something like v2 merged into 5.20-rc1 in a couple
of weeks and then also remove the broken marking.

For enterprise distros to be able to backport this what matters is it
being in Torvald's master branch, so from that pov this just delays
things a couple of weeks. Which is well worth it IMHO to give us some more
time to get the userspace API right.