On 07/31/2014 02:19 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:00:14PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 07/31/2014 10:53 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

quoted

Hi Christopher,

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 06:53:56PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:

quoted

quoted

Add support for updating firmware on RMI4 devices with V5 bootloader.

I am wondering why F34 is not following the staindard RMI function
implementation. By that I mean that it does not declare itself as struct
rmi_function_handler and does not rely on RMI core to bind itself to the device
if device supports it.

Hi Dmitry,

We originally had an F34 implementation that followed the RMI4
function standard and exposed most of the basic F34 operations via
sysfs. However, we got feedback (both on LKML and offline) (a)
recommending to use request_firmware, and (b) improve reflash times
while (c) reducing impact on boot time, and (d) "get rid of all that
sysfs crap" (paraphrased, but close to it).

So after looking at how some other drivers use request_firmware, we
came up with the current approach.  Switching to request_firmware
definitely sped up the reflash times!  Including a check to see if
firmware update is required before setting up the RMI4
sensor/function structures also significantly reduced boot times.

 >

I am not suggesting you stop using request-firmware or introduce
bazillion of new sysfs attributes. I just wondered why you have manual
"binding" of F34 functionality instead of standrad RMI4 function
binding, liek you do for F01, F11 and so forth.

Sorry!  My answer wasn't very clear on that part, was it?

The manual binding gets the reflash (if required) done very early in the 
boot/probe process.  This eliminates the need to set up the whole sensor 
+ functions structure, tear it down in order to reflash, and then build 
it all back up again.  It is felt that the time savings is significant, 
especially on highly featured products.

					Chris