linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: tidspbridge: remove file handling functions for loader

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101208230802.GA8176@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:08:02 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	"Ramirez Luna, Omar" <omar.ramirez@...com>
Cc:	linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
	Fernando Guzman Lugo <fernando.lugo@...com>,
	Armando Uribe De Leon <x0095078@...com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Ernesto Ramos Falcon <ernesto@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Rene Sapiens <rene.sapiens@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: tidspbridge: remove file handling functions
 for loader

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:02:20PM -0600, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:09:06AM -0600, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote:
> >> Instead use request_firmware and friends to get a valid firmware
> >> image.
> >>
> >> Right now the image is supplied dynamically through udev and the
> >> following rule:
> >>
> >> KERNEL=="omap-dsp", SUBSYSTEM=="firmware", ACTION=="add",     \
> >>       RUN+="/bin/sh -c 'echo 1 > /sys/$DEVPATH/loading;       \
> >>               cat $FIRMWARE > /sys/$DEVPATH/data;             \
> >>               echo 0 > /sys/$DEVPATH/loading'"
> >
> > Why do you need a custom firmware rule?
> 
> It was meant as an example, when I compiled my minimal file system it
> didn't supply the firmware.sh script nor created /lib/firmware... I
> thought that not everybody would have the firmware.sh, so I just
> provided a sample rule.

So, can I remove this from the changelog comment, as it's not really
needed at all?

> >  Why doesn't the default  firmware loading rule that comes with udev work properly for you?
> > What are you needing different here that works properly for all other drivers?
> 
> firmware.sh under /lib/udev/ and dsp binaries installed under
> /lib/firmware/, my rule is the brute version of firmware.sh so nothing
> different in the script.
> 
> Probably the only change would be to supply the firmware name only, as
> of now the insmod parameter requires the entire path, e.g.:
> 
> insmod bridgedriver.ko base_img=/lib/dsp/baseimage.dof
> 
> if using firmware.sh and placing firmware files under /lib/firmware/, then
> 
> insmod bridgedriver.ko base_img=baseimage.dof

Ick, why use a module parameter name at all?  Why is this "special" and
different from all other firmware users?  They don't have to manually
specify a file name, the driver does that.

Please fix up the patch to not require a module parameter, distros hate
them, and users hate them even more.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/