On 09/07/2024 16:33, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:51:55PM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
Log the WMFW file format version with the INFO_TEST message.
The behaviour of firmware controls depends on the WMFW format version,
so this is useful information to log for debugging. But there's no
need to use a separate log line just for this value.
Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c b/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c
index 1bc2e0b6d40b..141a6c9d6737 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c
@@ -1502,7 +1502,6 @@ static int cs_dsp_load(struct cs_dsp *dsp, const struct firmware *firmware,
goto out_fw;
}
- cs_dsp_info(dsp, "Firmware version: %d\n", header->ver);
dsp->fw_ver = header->ver;
if (header->core != dsp->type) {
@@ -1552,7 +1551,7 @@ static int cs_dsp_load(struct cs_dsp *dsp, const struct firmware *firmware,
case WMFW_INFO_TEXT:
case WMFW_NAME_TEXT:
region_name = "Info/Name";
- cs_dsp_info(dsp, "%s: %.*s\n", file,
+ cs_dsp_info(dsp, "%s (rev %d): %.*s\n", file, dsp->fw_ver,
min(le32_to_cpu(region->len), 100), region->data);
Are we sure on this one? I don't think a WMFW is required to
include an INFO/NAME block so it is now possible for this to not
get printed. Granted I have not seen one that doesn't include
at least one of these blocks but it isn't required. I think I
would lean towards keening the separate print personally.
Thanks,
Charles
The specification says that the first INFO block is mandatory, but
specifications can change so I don't mind leaving it on its own line.
I've just noticed a typo in the commit description (INFO_TEST should be
INFO_TEXT) so I want to send a V2 chain anyway.
