Hi Baruch,
On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 21:33 +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
[...]
> > To increase the number of firmware paths, coda_fw_callback has to be
> > modified, too. Otherwise it will just ignore firmware[2]:
>
> Thanks for catching that. But shouldn't we make the firmware files list a NULL
> terminated array instead of spreading the array size knowledge all over the
> code?
Maybe, although the array is not really variable length. Another
possibility would be to save that tiny amount of wasted space and add a
#define MAX_FIRMWARE_PATHS 3
> I have one more question below.
>
> > static void coda_fw_callback(const struct firmware *fw, void *context)
> > {
> > struct coda_dev *dev = context;
> > struct platform_device *pdev = dev->plat_dev;
> > int i, ret;
> >
> > - if (!fw && dev->firmware == 1) {
> > + if (!fw && dev->firmware == 2) {
> > v4l2_err(&dev->v4l2_dev, "firmware request failed\n");
> > goto put_pm;
> > }
> > if (!fw) {
> > - dev->firmware = 1;
> > + dev->firmware++;
> > coda_firmware_request(dev);
> > return;
> > }
> > - if (dev->firmware == 1) {
> > + if (dev->firmware > 0) {
>
> Why would vpu/vpu_fw_*.bin and v4l-coda960-*.bin be considered fallback
> firmware?
That was meant in the sense of a firmware loaded from fallback location.
See the comment below, I needed a string to tell the user that the
preceding firmware not found error messages can be safely ignored. If
you have an idea for better wording, feel free submit a change.
> > /*
> > * Since we can't suppress warnings for failed asynchronous
> > * firmware requests, report that the fallback firmware was
> > * found.
> > */
> > dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Using fallback firmware %s\n",
> > dev->devtype->firmware[dev->firmware]);
> > }
>
> Thanks,
> baruch
regards
Philipp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
