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 16:01:24 +0100 |
| |
On 23/08/16 15:55, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 08/23/2016 04:54 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> 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 ? >> > > I've experimented and returns EOPNOTSUPP, Amlogic confirmed to us the command was not implemented. > > This a clearly a corner-case. >
OK, thanks for the confirmation. Not exporting anything could be kind of breaking ABI as it was not made optional when introduced :( (you can blame me ;))
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |