Hi Luis,
On 2019-08-22 12:47 p.m., Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:24:46PM -0700, Scott Branden wrote:
@@ -923,16 +936,22 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(firmware_request_cache); */ int request_firmware_into_buf(const struct firmware **firmware_p, const char *name,
struct device *device, void *buf, size_t size)
struct device *device, void *buf, size_t size,size_t offset, unsigned int pread_flags)This implies you having to change the other callers, and while currently our list of drivers is small,
Yes, the list is small, very small.
There is a single driver making a call to the existing API.
And, the existing API was never tested until I submitted a test case.
And, the maintainer of that driver wanted
to start utilizing my enhanced API instead of the current API.
As such I think it is very reasonable to update the API right now.
following the history of the firmware API and the long history of debate of *how* we should evolve its API, its preferred we add yet another new caller for this functionality. So please add a new caller, and use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
And while at it, pleaase use firmware_request_*() as the prefix, as we have want to use that as the instilled prefix. We have yet to complete the rename of the others older callers but its just a matter of time.
So something like: firmware_request_into_buf_offset()
I would prefer to rename the API at this time given there is only a single user.
Otherwise I would need to duplicate quite a bit in the test code to support testing
the single user of the old api and then enhanced API.
Or, I can leave existing API in place and change the test case to
just test the enhanced API to keep things simpler in the test code?
And thanks for adding a test case!
Luis
Regards,
Scott