Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2017 12:52:39 -0700 | From | Bjorn Andersson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: wake all waiters |
| |
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: > > On Tue 27 Jun 11:03 PDT 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > [..] > > > Let's consider a crazy case where the uevent gets triggered, and userspace goes > > > and signals Elon Musk somehow to transmit the needed firmware from Mars through > > > a serial satellite link to earth, and somehow someday the device is finally > > > ready to upload firmware from userspace. Once Elon's firmware lands home, we > > > know all needed firmware has arrived so anything missing we can acknowledge now > > > as missing, so we upload what we can and kick firmward into final-mode to tell > > > the kernel we know we're really ready and any pending things will have to be > > > given up. > > > > > > This would prove the custom fallback crap was also never needed. > > > > > > > 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.
> 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?
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.
Regards, Bjorn
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |