Re: [PATCH V2] firmware: simplify defining and handling FW_OPT_FALLBACK

[RafaÅ MiÅecki]

On 11 December 2016 at 23:46, Arend van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11-12-16 22:21, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>> From: RafaÅ MiÅecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 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: RafaÅ MiÅecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> V2: s/config_enabled/IS_ENABLED/ to compile since c0a0aba8e47 ("kconfig.h: remove config_enabled() macro")
>> ---
>>  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 22d1760..0e1d5b8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
>> @@ -112,13 +112,9 @@ static inline long firmware_loading_timeout(void)
>>  #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 */
>> @@ -1175,8 +1171,12 @@ _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) {
>
> When mixing logical and binary expressions I would suggest putting the
> binary expression between brackets.

I checked my patch with checkpatch.pl before sending and it didn't
complain. I just re-read CodingStyle but I didn't find any info on
this.

It this some upstream-documented preference for coding style?

-- 
RafaÅ