[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <133955103.20131218114845@eikelenboom.it>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:48:45 +0100
From: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC: Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
"Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ilw@...ux.intel.com" <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Avinash Patil <avinashapatil@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [cfg80211 / iwlwifi] setting wireless regulatory domain doesn't work.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 10:26:25 AM, you wrote:
> Hi all,
> We really should be asking Luis to look at this who hasn't yet chimed
> in, presumably because he's between jobs (and travelling IIRC)
> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 10:16 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 12/17/2013 11:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > We have literally had this *exact* same issue with firmware loading.
>> > Network drivers shouldn't try to load firmware at module load time.
>> > Same deal.
>>
>> It is kind of a chicken and egg problem for (wireless) networking
>> drivers. To get IFF_UP from the network layer you have to register a
>> netdevice. For wireless drivers this means you have to register a wiphy
>> device with cfg80211 which flags capabilities and optionally are custom
>> regulatory domain. That information depends on the device and firmware
>> used. And there we have a full circle.
> This is all really beside the point.
> For this CRDA information, the kernel never actually *waits* for it, so
> in the case that there's no reply, it uses the built-in world domain. So
> it's not like request_firmware(), which will block boot forever, but
> it's also not like request_firmware_nowait() which will eventually time
> out and come back with an error if userspace isn't handling it (though
> now that firmware loading is built in ...)
> The issue is that it uses the built-in data *forever*, and what Sander
> said was "or it will block forever" but just meant that it never was
> able to do any further updates.
> It *doesn't* actually block the boot process or such. Everything Linus
> said is true but seems to have been written in understanding "blocks" as
> "blocking the boot process", rather than "blocking further updates".
> Regardless of this, even blocking further updates is a really bad idea.
> There are a few ways to handle this, but I'll let Luis poke at that.
Your description is correct, sorry if I was not clear.
--
Sander
> johannes
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists