Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:34:49 +0200 | From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware loader: inform direct failure when udev loader is disabled |
| |
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:51:36AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 11:22:07AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > >> At Tue, 1 Jul 2014 11:54:24 +0800, > >> Ming Lei wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez > >> > <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote: > >> > > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com> > >> > > > >> > > Now that the udev firmware loader is optional request_firmware() > >> > > will not provide any information on the kernel ring buffer if > >> > > direct firmware loading failed and udev firmware loading is disabled. > >> > > If no information is needed request_firmware_direct() should be used > >> > > for optional firmware, at which point drivers can take on the onus > >> > > over informing of any failures, if udev firmware loading is disabled > >> > > though we should at the very least provide some sort of information > >> > > as when the udev loader was enabled by default back in the days. > >> > > > >> > > With this change with a simple firmware load test module [0]: > >> > > > >> > > Example output without FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK > >> > > > >> > > platform fake-dev.0: Direct firmware load for fake.bin failed with error -2 > >> > > > >> > > Example without FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK > >> > > > >> > > platform fake-dev.0: Direct firmware load for fake.bin failed with error -2 > >> > > platform fake-dev.0: Falling back to user helper > >> > > > >> > > Without this change without FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK we get no output > >> > > logged upon failure. > >> > > > >> > > [0] https://github.com/mcgrof/fake-firmware-test.git > >> > > > >> > > Cc: Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> > >> > > Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com> > >> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > >> > > Cc: Abhay Salunke <Abhay_Salunke@dell.com> > >> > > Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > >> > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > >> > > Cc: Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org> > >> > > Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> > >> > > --- > >> > > > >> > > drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 12 ++++++++---- > >> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > >> > > index 46ea5f4..23274d8 100644 > >> > > --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > >> > > +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > >> > > @@ -101,8 +101,10 @@ static inline long firmware_loading_timeout(void) > >> > > #define FW_OPT_NOWAIT (1U << 1) > >> > > #ifdef CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER > >> > > #define FW_OPT_USERHELPER (1U << 2) > >> > > +#define FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN 0 > >> > > #else > >> > > #define FW_OPT_USERHELPER 0 > >> > > +#define FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN (1U << 3) > >> > > #endif > >> > > #ifdef CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK > >> > > #define FW_OPT_FALLBACK FW_OPT_USERHELPER > >> > > @@ -1116,10 +1118,11 @@ _request_firmware(const struct firmware **firmware_p, const char *name, > >> > > > >> > > ret = fw_get_filesystem_firmware(device, fw->priv); > >> > > if (ret) { > >> > > - if (opt_flags & FW_OPT_USERHELPER) { > >> > > + if (opt_flags & (FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN | FW_OPT_USERHELPER)) > >> > > dev_warn(device, > >> > > - "Direct firmware load failed with error %d\n", > >> > > - ret); > >> > > + "Direct firmware load for %s failed with error %d\n", > >> > > + name, ret); > >> > > >> > Maybe the warning can be always printed out since > >> > (FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN | FW_OPT_USERHELPER) should be > >> > always true. > >> > >> Yes, it'd be simpler. Let's reduce lines! :) > > > > Actually we don't want to warn when request_firmware_direct() is used right? That's really what > > Yes, that is for the CPU microcode update in which it is common to > fail in direct loading, and x86 guys hate the warning.
I've extended use of request_firmware_direct() to drivers that also load non-firmware but optional config files, EEPROM override, etc.
> > I meant to upkeep while adding a warning when _direct() is not used. So how about > > this as an ammendment: > > Yes, the idea is right, and it is good to make request_firmware_direct() > not depend on CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER, and with > one FW_OPT_DIRECT_ONLY flag together it should work.
OK.
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > > index 23274d8..4f6adf3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > > @@ -66,13 +68,12 @@ static inline void release_firmware(const struct firmware *fw) > > { > > } > > > > -#endif > > +static inline int request_firmware_direct(const struct firmware **fw, > > + const char *name, > > + struct device *device) > > +{ > > + return -EINVAL; > > +} > > You define two request_firmware_direct?
This is the negative of
#if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
We have two also for request_firmware().
Will send out a v2.
Luis
| |