Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:54:17 +0100 |
| |
On 23/08/16 09:23, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 08/19/2016 06:46 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 18/08/16 11:11, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>> In Amlogic GXBB Legacy SCPI, the LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SCPI_CAPABILITIES report >>> as SCPI_ERR_SUPPORT, so do not fail if this command is not supported. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 12 +++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c >>> index 3fe39fe..d3be4c5 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c >>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c >>> @@ -1111,12 +1111,13 @@ err: >>> ret = scpi_info->ops->init_versions(scpi_info); >>> else >>> ret = scpi_init_versions(scpi_info); >>> - if (ret) { >>> + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) { >>> dev_err(dev, "incorrect or no SCP firmware found\n"); >>> scpi_remove(pdev); >>> return ret; >>> } >>> >> >> Why not deal it in init_versions itself. >> >>> + if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) { >>> _dev_info(dev, "SCP Protocol %d.%d Firmware %d.%d.%d version\n", >>> PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(scpi_info->protocol_version), >>> PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->protocol_version), >> >> Why not have default value like 0.0 ? Just add a comment. Since get >> version is exported out, IMO having default value makes more sense. What >> do you think ? >> >>> @@ -1124,15 +1125,16 @@ err: >>> FW_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->firmware_version), >>> FW_REV_PATCH(scpi_info->firmware_version)); >>> >>> + ret = sysfs_create_groups(&dev->kobj, versions_groups); >>> + if (ret) >>> + dev_err(dev, "unable to create sysfs version group\n"); >>> + } >>> + >> >> Again this can stay as is if we have default. >> > > Printing version 0.0 firmware 0.0.0 is a nonsense for me... >
OK 0.0 was a wrong example. May be 0.1 ?
Since the driver has already exposed, hypothetically user-space can use that information, so IMO, we need to expose some static version for pre-v1.0
I am surprised that capability is not supported as this was present even in that legacy SCPI. Do you know what happens if you send that command ? Have you done some experiments on that ?
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |