Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] brcmfmac: don't warn user about NVRAM if fallback to platform one succeeds

[RafaÅ MiÅecki]

On 2017-02-16 10:18, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On 16-2-2017 10:04, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
> > On 2017-02-16 09:38, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> > > On 16-2-2017 8:26, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
> > > > From: RafaÅ MiÅecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 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: RafaÅ MiÅecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > 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.