On 16-2-2017 8:26, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <ra...@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 <ra...@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
