Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] typhoon: use request_firmware | From | David Dillow <> | Date | Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:43:20 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 20:20 +0530, Jaswinder Singh wrote: > --- a/drivers/net/typhoon.c > +++ b/drivers/net/typhoon.c
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > +MODULE_LICENSE("3com/typhoon.bin");
Uhm, MODULE_FIRMWARE()?
> @@ -1368,8 +1371,14 @@ typhoon_download_firmware(struct typhoon *tp) > int i; > int err; > > + err = request_firmware(&fw, fw_name, &tp->pdev->dev); > + if (err) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Failed to load firmware \"%s\"\n", > + tp->name, fw_name); > + return err; > + } > err = -EINVAL; > - fHdr = (struct typhoon_file_header *) typhoon_firmware_image; > + fHdr = (struct typhoon_file_header *) fw->data; > image_data = (u8 *) fHdr; > > if(memcmp(fHdr->tag, "TYPHOON", 8)) { > @@ -1494,6 +1503,7 @@ err_out_irq: > pci_free_consistent(pdev, PAGE_SIZE, dpage, dpage_dma); > > err_out: > + release_firmware(fw); > return err; > }
It is not quite this simple. By not loading the firmware on device probe, you have opened the door to a broken resume, and the driver will now try to sleep in an atomic context, when typhoon_tx_timeout() is called at the very least.
I've said that I was thinking about doing the conversion myself, and I think the firmware loader makes some sense for new drivers. But the more I think about converting old -- fairly static -- drivers such as typhoon, I wonder "what's the point?" We don't save memory, we add code, and we add failure points that weren't there before. Where's the upside?
Dave
| |