[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6X1fmg+2mh6g=zJoWUNsOW2yvftt5pT4xYrBQER0TFSSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:24:18 -0700
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"Li, Yi" <yi1.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, nbroeking@...com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
jewalt@...innovations.com, rafal@...ecki.pl,
Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, atull@...nel.org,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
mtosatti@...hat.com, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: wake all waiters
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Tue 27 Jun 12:08 PDT 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:59:15AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> > Are you saying that each kernel driver should be written so that it will
>> > either do direct loading or use firmwared?
>>
>> Hell No! You can fork firmwared or use whatever the hell bin-foo you want.
>> Even if its proprietary and glued with evil rainbow unicorns on it. The dual
>> mode, best-effort mode and final-mode devices it implemented are key to what
>> you want to mimic as an example to achieve the goal in question.
>>
>
> I'm sorry but your language is totally inappropriate and the reason why
> I tend to stay away from firmware-related discussions.
I'm sorry if I offended you, the goal here was to use an exaggerated
example of what anyone could use to draw in firmware into the kernel.
>> Please give that thought / architecture solution a spin and let me know if
>> it suffices for your needs.
>>
>
> Which solution do you refer to here?
The model of a best-effort and final-mode.
> But as I said, in my view, the decision of making the kernel depend on a
> user space firmware loading mechanism or direct loading should be that
> of the system designer - not the kernel.
You get that freedom today. The fallback mechanism *allows* files to
be fetched in whatever way possible, by issuing a uevent, its up to
userspace to figure out how to gather that and toss it back into the
kernel using the sysfs interface. The firemward daemon is nothing but
an example *new* daemon which uses a model to address the rootfs /
pivot root dilema, as only userspace can know when userspace *is
ready*.
So its not clear to me yet what your grudge with using firmwared with
this new model is exactly. Are you saying you want to *require* the
fallback mechanism from the start, so just skipping the direct FS
lookup ? That would be a new feature request, and we can certainly
consider it, but I'll need Greg to clue me in first on how he'd prefer
an API evolution for new features.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists