On December 1, 2022 4:01:39 AM wangyufen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 在 2022/11/30 19:19, Arend van Spriel 写道:
>> On 11/30/2022 3:00 AM, wangyufen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 在 2022/11/30 1:41, Franky Lin 写道:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:47 AM Wang Yufen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix to return a negative error code -EINVAL instead of 0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compile tested only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: d380ebc9b6fb ("brcmfmac: rename chip download functions")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 1 +
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>> index 465d95d..329ec8ac 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>> @@ -3414,6 +3414,7 @@ static int brcmf_sdio_download_firmware(struct
>>>>> brcmf_sdio *bus,
>>>>> /* Take arm out of reset */
>>>>> if (!brcmf_chip_set_active(bus->ci, rstvec)) {
>>>>> brcmf_err("error getting out of ARM core reset\n");
>>>>> + bcmerror = -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> ENODEV seems more appropriate here.
>>>
>>> However, if brcmf_chip_set_active() fails in
>>> brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state(), "-EINVAL" is returned.
>>> Is it necessary to keep consistent?
>>
>> If we can not get the ARM on the chip out of reset things will fail soon
>> enough further down the road. Anyway, the other function calls return
>> -EIO so let's do the same here.
>
> So -EIO is better? Anyone else have any other opinions? ????
Obviously it is no better than -EINVAL when you look at the behavior. It is
just a feeble attempt to be a little bit more consistent. Feel free to
change the return value for brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state() as well.
Regards,
Arend
>>
Arend Van Spriel <[email protected]> writes:
> On December 1, 2022 4:01:39 AM wangyufen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 在 2022/11/30 19:19, Arend van Spriel 写道:
>>> On 11/30/2022 3:00 AM, wangyufen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2022/11/30 1:41, Franky Lin 写道:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:47 AM Wang Yufen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix to return a negative error code -EINVAL instead of 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compile tested only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: d380ebc9b6fb ("brcmfmac: rename chip download functions")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 1 +
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>>> index 465d95d..329ec8ac 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>>>> @@ -3414,6 +3414,7 @@ static int brcmf_sdio_download_firmware(struct
>>>>>> brcmf_sdio *bus,
>>>>>> /* Take arm out of reset */
>>>>>> if (!brcmf_chip_set_active(bus->ci, rstvec)) {
>>>>>> brcmf_err("error getting out of ARM core reset\n");
>>>>>> + bcmerror = -EINVAL;
>>>>>
>>>>> ENODEV seems more appropriate here.
>>>>
>>>> However, if brcmf_chip_set_active() fails in
>>>> brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state(), "-EINVAL" is returned.
>>>> Is it necessary to keep consistent?
>>>
>>> If we can not get the ARM on the chip out of reset things will fail soon
>>> enough further down the road. Anyway, the other function calls return
>>> -EIO so let's do the same here.
>>
>> So -EIO is better? Anyone else have any other opinions? ????
>
> Obviously it is no better than -EINVAL when you look at the behavior.
> It is just a feeble attempt to be a little bit more consistent. Feel
> free to change the return value for brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state()
> as well.
Weirdly Arend's last comment is not visible in patchwork:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/[email protected]/
His last email is visible, but the last paragraph is not shown. Some
strange hiccup somewhere I guess, just wanted to mention it in case we
see more of them.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches