On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:02:22PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:32:26AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 03:10:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > > Even though most distributions today disable the fallback mechanism >> > > by default we've determined that we cannot remove them from the kernel. >> > > This is not well understood so document the reason and logic behind that. >> > >> > Well, the biggest reason is that some distros still rely on this. I've >> > seen new products being made that rely on it, >> >> Let's be a bit more precise: upstream there are only two driver relying on >> this >> and I've learned about the non-upstream uses which folks have been calling >> for >> ensuring this functionality is kept for: a) non-upstream mobile 802.11 >> drivers or >> upstream 802.11 drivers with slight out-of-tree customizations with a >> requirements to >> get calibration data using custom mechanisms b) remote-proc users with huge >> firmware >> requirements for which initramfs is not well suited for. > > That b) is a lot of devices, I know of a few million phones in the wild > right now that rely on it. And millions is a pretty big number :) > > Anyway, thanks for addressing my concerns, I'm guessing you will respin > these remaining patches and resend them as I think there were still some > comments on them? I took the first 3 here.
Yeah sure, I will address these comments. > Is the "drvdata" code ready in your opinion to be merged / reviewed yet? drvdata stuff is ready as can be but after the sysdata/drvdata rename change I failed to change one of the p54 files, I also forgot to Cc Boris on the microcode conversion so I can just respin the drvdata series again as a separate series right after I address the concerns for this series. Luis
