| Message ID | 20170216072636.7128-2-zajec5@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
| Headers | show |
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) Regards, Arend
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.
On 16-2-2017 10:04, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > 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. To be honest whether or not FW_OPT_UEVENT is needed should not be something a driver needs to concern about. It is really a system configuration issue if you ask me. So the only thing we could do is to have it just in case. Regards, Arend
On 2017-02-16 10:18, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 16-2-2017 10:04, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> 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. > > To be honest whether or not FW_OPT_UEVENT is needed should not be > something a driver needs to concern about. It is really a system > configuration issue if you ask me. So the only thing we could do is to > have it just in case. Drivers always got a choice (see bool uevent) so I didn't want to change it.
On 16-2-2017 10:32, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 2017-02-16 10:18, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> On 16-2-2017 10:04, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> 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. >> >> To be honest whether or not FW_OPT_UEVENT is needed should not be >> something a driver needs to concern about. It is really a system >> configuration issue if you ask me. So the only thing we could do is to >> have it just in case. > > Drivers always got a choice (see bool uevent) so I didn't want to change > it. Sure, I know. I just wanted to vent an opinion for the firmware_class maintainers. Regards, Arend
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); if (!ret) return;