On 16-2-2017 10:04, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 2017-02-16 09:38, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>> On 16-2-2017 8:26, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Failing to load NVRAM file isn't critical if we manage to get platform
>>> one in the fallback path. It means warnings like:
>>> [ 10.801506] brcmfmac 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for
>>> brcm/brcmfmac43602-pcie.txt failed with error -2
>>> are unnecessary & disturbing for people with platform NVRAM. This is
>>> very common case for Broadcom home routers.
>>>
>>> So instead of printing warning immediately with the firmware subsystem
>>> let's first try our fallback code. If that fails as well, then it's a
>>> right moment to print an error.
>>>
>>> This should reduce amount of false reports from users seeing this
>>> warning while having wireless working perfectly fine.
>>
>> There are of course people with issues who take this warning as a straw
>> to clutch.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> V2: Update commit message as it wasn't clear enough (thanks Andy) &
>>> add extra
>>> messages to the firmware.c.
>>>
>>> Kalle, Arend: this patch is strictly related to the bigger 1/2. Could
>>> you ack
>>> this change as I expect this patchset to be picked by Ming, Luis or
>>> Greg?
>>> ---
>>> .../net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c | 16
>>> +++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c
>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c
>>> index c7c1e9906500..510a76d99eee 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c
>>> @@ -462,8 +462,14 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const
>>> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
>>> raw_nvram = false;
>>> } else {
>>> data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len);
>>> - if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
>>> - goto fail;
>>> + if (!data) {
>>> + brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "Failed to get platform NVRAM\n");
>>> + if (!(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL)) {
>>> + brcmf_err("Loading NVRAM from %s and using platform
>>> one both failed\n",
>>> + fwctx->nvram_name);
>>> + goto fail;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> raw_nvram = true;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -504,9 +510,9 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_code_done(const
>>> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> fwctx->code = fw;
>>> - ret = request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, true, fwctx->nvram_name,
>>> - fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL, fwctx,
>>> - brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done);
>>> + ret = request_firmware_async(THIS_MODULE, FW_OPT_NO_WARN,
>>> + fwctx->nvram_name, fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL,
>>> + fwctx, brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done);
>>
>> You changed the behaviour, because of your change in patch 1/2:
>>
>> - fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_FALLBACK |
>> - (uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER);
>> + fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | opt_flags;
>>
>> So: (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_UEVENT) vs (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_NO_WARN)
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize brcmfmac needs FW_OPT_UEVENT. I'll re-add it in
> V3, just
> let me wait to see if there will be more comments.
To be honest whether or not FW_OPT_UEVENT is needed should not be
something a driver needs to concern about. It is really a system
configuration issue if you ask me. So the only thing we could do is to
have it just in case.
Regards,
Arend
