Return-path: Received: from 14.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.97.215]:47849 "EHLO 14.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751215AbdBPKVM (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 05:21:12 -0500 Received: from player726.ha.ovh.net (b7.ovh.net [213.186.33.57]) by mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0D95560D for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:04:40 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:04:30 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= To: Arend Van Spriel Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , Ming Lei , "Luis R . Rodriguez" , Greg KH , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kalle Valo , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] brcmfmac: don't warn user about NVRAM if fallback to platform one succeeds In-Reply-To: References: <20170215222948.21030-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <20170216072636.7128-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <20170216072636.7128-2-zajec5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <894daa616fc3bbd875e075b3096dba8e@milecki.pl> (sfid-20170216_112116_089482_B8D9294D) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2017-02-16 09:38, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 16-2-2017 8:26, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki >> >> 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 >> --- >> 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.