Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:06:47 -0600 | From | Tim Gardner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] vxge: Declare MODULE_FIRMWARE usage |
| |
On 07/26/2012 01:55 PM, Jon Mason wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> wrote: >> Cc: Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us> >> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> >> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> >> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com> >> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com> >> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c | 9 +++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c >> index de21904..d4832b2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c >> @@ -4203,6 +4203,9 @@ out: >> return ret; >> } >> >> +#define VXGE_PXE_FIRMWARE "vxge/X3fw-pxe.ncf" >> +#define VXGE_FIRMWARE "vxge/X3fw.ncf" >> + >> static int vxge_probe_fw_update(struct vxgedev *vdev) >> { >> u32 maj, min, bld; >> @@ -4245,9 +4248,9 @@ static int vxge_probe_fw_update(struct vxgedev *vdev) >> } >> } >> if (gpxe) >> - fw_name = "vxge/X3fw-pxe.ncf"; >> + fw_name = VXGE_PXE_FIRMWARE; >> else >> - fw_name = "vxge/X3fw.ncf"; >> + fw_name = VXGE_FIRMWARE; >> >> ret = vxge_fw_upgrade(vdev, fw_name, 0); >> /* -EINVAL and -ENOENT are not fatal errors for flashing firmware on >> @@ -4855,3 +4858,5 @@ vxge_closer(void) >> } >> module_init(vxge_starter); >> module_exit(vxge_closer); >> +MODULE_FIRMWARE(VXGE_PXE_FIRMWARE); >> +MODULE_FIRMWARE(VXGE_FIRMWARE); > > IIUC, MODULE_FIRMWARE is only necessary for devices that need firmware > to operate. vxge hardware has an image in flash on the nic, and the > modified code is used to update the firmware image on the adapter. > So, this change isn't doing what you want it to do. > > Also, wasn't this already discussed (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/12/401)? > > Thanks, > Jon >
Hmm, I'd forgotten about that discussion, but its no more correct now then it was then. MODULE_FIRMWARE is purely informational and has _no_ runtime impact. It is merely an indicator that a firmware file _might_ be used by the kernel and should therefore be left in the external firmware package. MODULE_FIRMWARE() uses the same base MODULE_INFO macro as MODULE_VERSION, MODULE_AUTHOR, MODULE_LICENSE, etc.
rtg -- Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
| |