Re: [PATCH 5/9] firmware: add functions to load firmware without warnings v4

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:33:03AM -0400, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
> @@ -755,10 +779,11 @@ static void firmware_request_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * firmware_request_nowait() - asynchronous version of firmware_request
> + * firmware_request_nowait2() - asynchronous version of firmware_request
>   * @module: module requesting the firmware
>   * @uevent: sends uevent to copy the firmware image if this flag
>   *	is non-zero else the firmware copy must be done manually.
> + * @warn: enable warnings
>   * @name: name of firmware file
>   * @device: device for which firmware is being loaded
>   * @gfp: allocation flags
> @@ -778,8 +803,8 @@ static void firmware_request_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
>   *		- can't sleep at all if @gfp is GFP_ATOMIC.
>   **/
>  int
> -firmware_request_nowait(
> -	struct module *module, bool uevent,
> +firmware_request_nowait2(
> +	struct module *module, bool uevent, bool warn,
>  	const char *name, struct device *device, gfp_t gfp, void *context,
>  	void (*cont)(const struct firmware *fw, void *context))
>  {
> @@ -799,7 +824,8 @@ firmware_request_nowait(
>  	fw_work->context = context;
>  	fw_work->cont = cont;
>  	fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT |
> -		(uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER);
> +		(uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER) |
> +		(warn ? 0 : FW_OPT_NO_WARN);
>  
>  	if (!uevent && fw_cache_is_setup(device, name)) {
>  		kfree_const(fw_work->name);
> @@ -818,6 +844,24 @@ firmware_request_nowait(
>  	schedule_work(&fw_work->work);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(firmware_request_nowait2);
> +
> +/**
> + * firmware_request_nowait() - compatibility version of firmware_request_nowait2
> + *
> + * This is equivalent to calling firmware_request_nowait2 with warnings enabled.
> + *
> + * Refer to firmware_request_nowait2 for further details.
> + **/
> +int
> +firmware_request_nowait(
> +	struct module *module, bool uevent,
> +	const char *name, struct device *device, gfp_t gfp, void *context,
> +	void (*cont)(const struct firmware *fw, void *context))
> +{
> +	return firmware_request_nowait2(module, uevent, true, name, device,
> +					gfp, context, cont);
> +}
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(firmware_request_nowait);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP

Ugh this is precisely the type of naming issue I predicted *years ago*
about the unflexibility of the naming scheme we used. Greg, since you had
sent us this rabbit hole, any name preference here? Please review what is
proposed and also suggest a scheme which you do prefer. I'm done with
the bikeshedding and just want to move on, but in a way that scales.

  Luis