From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752621Ab3GHQtf (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:49:35 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:49244 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752159Ab3GHQte (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:49:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:49:33 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Dave Jones , Ming Lei , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: dell_rbu: Select CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER explicitly Message-ID: <20130708164933.GB12670@kroah.com> References: <20130702192749.A2E7E660D9B@gitolite.kernel.org> <20130706221401.GA3652@redhat.com> <20130706223003.GA10697@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:05:20AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > The reason is that dell_rbu driver requires it. Without the kconfig > option, this driver won't work at all. So, it's a right fix for > dell_rbu. > > AFAIK, the consensus in the kernel side is that this too long fw > loading time is basically a regression of user-space (udev or > whatever). There is no change in the kernel behavior. The problem > must exist even with the older kernels. > > But, looking at the development, we can't expect that udev will be > fixed soon, and this breakage persists already way too long. Maybe a > better solution is to kill the fallback to udev for normal f/w loading > (i.e. for distro kernels). I thought udev was already fixed for this issue, so why would a "modern" distro need to worry about this? > The patch below is an untested quick hack. It adds a new Kconfig and > a new function request_firmware_via_user_helper(). Distro kernels may > set CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK=n for avoiding 60 seconds > stall for non-existing firmware file access -- as distributions know > that the firmware files should be placed in the right path. > > Thoughts? There's no way we can just fix up the driver instead of doing this in the firmware core? thanks, greg k-h