On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:39:23PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:10:47AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 3/11/2018 5:05 PM, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
> >> > > Your patch series then should also have the driver callers who you
> >> > > want to modify to use this new API. Collect from the 802.11 folks the
> >> > > other drivers which I think they wanted changed as well.
> >> >
> >> > Arend, Kalle, would love to hear your feedback.
> >> I am not sure if it was ath10k, but Kalle will surely know. The other
> >> driver
> >> firing a whole batch of firmware requests is iwlwifi. These basically try
> >> to
> >> get latest firmware version and if not there try an older one.
> > Ah I recall now. At least for iwlwifi its that it requests firmware with a
> > range of api files, and we don't need information about files in the middle
> > not found, given all we need to know if is if at lest one file was found
> > or not.
> > I have future code to also enable use of a range request which would replace
> > the recursive nature of iwlwifi's firmware API request, so it simplifies it
> > considerably.
> > Once we get this flag to be silent in, this can be used later. Ie, the new
> > API I'd add would replace the complex api revision thing for an internal
> > set.
> TBH I doubt we would use this kind of "range" request in ath10k,
Well it doesn't have the form to use a range either so it wouldn't make sense.
> current code works just fine only if we can get rid of the annoying
> warning from request_firmware(). Unless if it's significantly faster or
Thanks, I see ath10k uses the sync request_firmware() call, so indeed it
would be a trivial conversion.
Andres can you roll that in for your patch series?