Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:04:30 +0100 | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] brcmfmac: don't warn user about NVRAM if fallback to platform one succeeds |
| |
On 2017-02-16 09:38, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 16-2-2017 8:26, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> Failing to load NVRAM file isn't critical if we manage to get platform >> one in the fallback path. It means warnings like: >> [ 10.801506] brcmfmac 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for >> brcm/brcmfmac43602-pcie.txt failed with error -2 >> are unnecessary & disturbing for people with platform NVRAM. This is >> very common case for Broadcom home routers. >> >> So instead of printing warning immediately with the firmware subsystem >> let's first try our fallback code. If that fails as well, then it's a >> right moment to print an error. >> >> This should reduce amount of false reports from users seeing this >> warning while having wireless working perfectly fine. > > There are of course people with issues who take this warning as a straw > to clutch. > >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> --- >> V2: Update commit message as it wasn't clear enough (thanks Andy) & >> add extra >> messages to the firmware.c. >> >> Kalle, Arend: this patch is strictly related to the bigger 1/2. Could >> you ack >> this change as I expect this patchset to be picked by Ming, Luis or >> Greg? >> --- >> .../net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c | 16 >> +++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git >> a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >> index c7c1e9906500..510a76d99eee 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >> @@ -462,8 +462,14 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const >> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx) >> raw_nvram = false; >> } else { >> data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len); >> - if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL)) >> - goto fail; >> + if (!data) { >> + brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "Failed to get platform NVRAM\n"); >> + if (!(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL)) { >> + brcmf_err("Loading NVRAM from %s and using platform one both >> failed\n", >> + fwctx->nvram_name); >> + goto fail; >> + } >> + } >> raw_nvram = true; >> } >> >> @@ -504,9 +510,9 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_code_done(const >> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx) >> return; >> } >> fwctx->code = fw; >> - ret = request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, true, fwctx->nvram_name, >> - fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL, fwctx, >> - brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done); >> + ret = request_firmware_async(THIS_MODULE, FW_OPT_NO_WARN, >> + fwctx->nvram_name, fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL, >> + fwctx, brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done); > > You changed the behaviour, because of your change in patch 1/2: > > - fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_FALLBACK | > - (uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER); > + fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | opt_flags; > > So: (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_UEVENT) vs (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_NO_WARN)
Sorry, I didn't realize brcmfmac needs FW_OPT_UEVENT. I'll re-add it in V3, just let me wait to see if there will be more comments.
| |