Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 RESEND] firmware: simplify defining and handling FW_OPT_FALLBACK | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:00:30 +0100 |
| |
On 02/21/2017 06:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 04:05:13PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> I found handling of FW_OPT_FALLBACK a bit complex. It was defined using >> another option and their values were dependent on kernel config. >> >> It was also non-trivial to follow the code. Some callers were using >> FW_OPT_FALLBACK which was confusing since the _request_firmware function >> was always checking for FW_OPT_USERHELPER (the same bit in a relevant >> configuration). >> >> With this patch FW_OPT_USERHELPER gets its own bit and is explicitly >> checked in the _request_firmware which hopefully makes code easier to >> understand. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> --- >> V2: s/config_enabled/IS_ENABLED/ to compile since c0a0aba8e47 ("kconfig.h: remove config_enabled() macro") >> >> RESEND: I was suggested to resend this patch (thanks Greg!) >> >> Ming/Luis/Greg: could someone accept this patch, please? I hope this trivial >> cleanup isn't too big deal. >> --- >> drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c >> index ac350c518e0c..d05be1732c8b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c >> @@ -190,13 +190,9 @@ static int __fw_state_check(struct fw_state *fw_st, enum fw_status status) >> #else >> #define FW_OPT_USERHELPER 0 >> #endif >> -#ifdef CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK >> -#define FW_OPT_FALLBACK FW_OPT_USERHELPER >> -#else >> -#define FW_OPT_FALLBACK 0 >> -#endif >> #define FW_OPT_NO_WARN (1U << 3) >> #define FW_OPT_NOCACHE (1U << 4) >> +#define FW_OPT_FALLBACK (1U << 5) >> >> struct firmware_cache { >> /* firmware_buf instance will be added into the below list */ >> @@ -1210,8 +1206,12 @@ _request_firmware(const struct firmware **firmware_p, const char *name, >> dev_warn(device, >> "Direct firmware load for %s failed with error %d\n", >> name, ret); >> - if (opt_flags & FW_OPT_USERHELPER) { >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK) && >> + opt_flags & FW_OPT_FALLBACK) { >> dev_warn(device, "Falling back to user helper\n"); >> + opt_flags |= FW_OPT_USERHELPER; >> + } >> + if (opt_flags & FW_OPT_USERHELPER) { >> ret = fw_load_from_user_helper(fw, name, device, >> opt_flags, timeout); > > I've given this some thought and while at first glance it seems like an > improvement but it deviates from the traditional way we fold out features in > Linux. Instead let's just wrap properly the entire functionality into wrappers > which will no-op for when the fallback mechanism is disabled. That dev_warn() > for example can just be moved to the call fw_load_from_user_helper() and when > we disable the feature it will be no-op. Ultimately I'd like to shove the > entire fallback mechanism to its own file.
I don't understand this part: "dev_warn() for example can just be moved to the call fw_load_from_user_helper()".
Did you mean moving dev_warn into fw_load_from_user_helper function? Should I move (opt_flags & FW_OPT_USERHELPER) condition there as well?
| |