On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:53:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> So I'm really not seeing why you want to make these conversions that > >> just make code worse. > > > > The real goal here was first to actually provide a flexible API to enable > > more advanced features to be added without having to affect existing > > callers, as has been done before. > > So I've said this before, and I'll say this one more time: > > It's fine if we make the internal implementation of some generic "load > data from the filesystem or user" be this kind of new flexible API > that is internally called "driver_data_request()" or whatever. > > But dammit, that is NOT AN EXCUSE for then making crap patches that > just replace the existing firmware users.
Works with me. > If the new interface cannot be wrapped in the old names (and the old > semantics) the new interface is shit and should never ever go > anywhere. There's a few questionable things part of the old API which (UMH lock is one used even if no UMH is used, the fallback mechanism another) so I've taken out what I can truly vouch for and its all being shared on the driver_data API. Extending the old API with yet-more flags is a big concern on my part so will also recommend new functionality to be focused on the newer API. > So leave the existing users alone. Concentrate on _only_ the parts > where there is actual and real need of new features. Don't try to > rename or extend current drivers. Don't send out these patches that > make drivers actively uglier. Really. Right on. Luis
