Hi!
> We need to ensure that when driver developers use the custom firmware
> fallback mechanism it was not a copy and paste bug. These use cases on
> upstream drivers are rare, we only have 2 upstream users and its for
> really old drivers. Since valid uses are rare but possible enable a
> white-list for its use, and use this same white-list annotation to refer
> to the documentation covering the custom use case.
> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c
> @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ static void lp55xx_firmware_loaded(const struct firmware *fw, void *context)
> release_firmware(chip->fw);
> }
>
> +DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK("Documentation/leds/leds-lp55xx.txt");
> static int lp55xx_request_firmware(struct lp55xx_chip *chip)
> {
> const char *name = chip->cl->name;
The driver does:
static void lp55xx_firmware_loaded(const struct firmware *fw, void
*context)
{
struct lp55xx_chip *chip = context;
struct device *dev = &chip->cl->dev;
enum lp55xx_engine_index idx =
chip->engine_idx;
if (!fw) {
dev_err(dev, "firmware request failed\n");
goto out;
}
...
out:
/* firmware should be released for other channel use */
release_firmware(chip->fw);
}
Does that match the "custom fallback" definition?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
