Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 22:43, Michael Chan wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 21:29 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Are you saying that you successfully run-tested it?
I've only reviewed the code. Let's resolve these issues first before
testing the code.
Please test these two patches.
I updated them according to your comments.
--
vda
diff -urpN linux-2.6.23-rc6/drivers/net/bnx2.c linux-2.6.23-rc6.bnx2/drivers/net/bnx2.c
--- linux-2.6.23-rc6/drivers/net/bnx2.c 2007-09-14 00:08:11.0 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc6.bnx2/drivers/net/bnx2.c 2007-09-20 15:47:06.0 +0100
@@ -52,6 +52,8 @@
#include bnx2_fw.h
#include bnx2_fw2.h
+#define FW_BUF_SIZE 0x8000
+
#define DRV_MODULE_NAME bnx2
#define PFX DRV_MODULE_NAME :
#define DRV_MODULE_VERSION 1.6.4
@@ -2767,89 +2769,44 @@ bnx2_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *dev)
spin_unlock_bh(bp-phy_lock);
}
-#define FW_BUF_SIZE 0x8000
-
+/* To be moved to generic lib/ */
static int
-bnx2_gunzip_init(struct bnx2 *bp)
+bnx2_gunzip(void *gunzip_buf, unsigned sz, u8 *zbuf, int len, void **outbuf)
{
- if ((bp-gunzip_buf = vmalloc(FW_BUF_SIZE)) == NULL)
- goto gunzip_nomem1;
+ struct z_stream_s *strm;
+ int rc;
- if ((bp-strm = kmalloc(sizeof(*bp-strm), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL)
- goto gunzip_nomem2;
+ /* gzip header (1f,8b,08... 10 bytes total + possible asciz filename)
+ * is stripped */
- bp-strm-workspace = kmalloc(zlib_inflate_workspacesize(), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (bp-strm-workspace == NULL)
+ rc = -ENOMEM;
+ strm = kmalloc(sizeof(*strm), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (strm == NULL)
+ goto gunzip_nomem2;
+ strm-workspace = kmalloc(zlib_inflate_workspacesize(), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (strm-workspace == NULL)
goto gunzip_nomem3;
- return 0;
+ strm-next_in = zbuf;
+ strm-avail_in = len;
+ strm-next_out = gunzip_buf;
+ strm-avail_out = sz;
+
+ rc = zlib_inflateInit2(strm, -MAX_WBITS);
+ if (rc == Z_OK) {
+ rc = zlib_inflate(strm, Z_FINISH);
+ if (rc == Z_OK)
+ rc = sz - strm-avail_out;
+ else
+ rc = -EINVAL;
+ zlib_inflateEnd(strm);
+ } else
+ rc = -EINVAL;
+ kfree(strm-workspace);
gunzip_nomem3:
- kfree(bp-strm);
- bp-strm = NULL;
-
+ kfree(strm);
gunzip_nomem2:
- vfree(bp-gunzip_buf);
- bp-gunzip_buf = NULL;
-
-gunzip_nomem1:
- printk(KERN_ERR PFX %s: Cannot allocate firmware buffer for
- uncompression.\n, bp-dev-name);
- return -ENOMEM;
-}
-
-static void
-bnx2_gunzip_end(struct bnx2 *bp)
-{
- kfree(bp-strm-workspace);
-
- kfree(bp-strm);
- bp-strm = NULL;
-
- if (bp-gunzip_buf) {
- vfree(bp-gunzip_buf);
- bp-gunzip_buf = NULL;
- }
-}
-
-static int
-bnx2_gunzip(struct bnx2 *bp, u8 *zbuf, int len, void **outbuf, int *outlen)
-{
- int n, rc;
-
- /* check gzip header */
- if ((zbuf[0] != 0x1f) || (zbuf[1] != 0x8b) || (zbuf[2] != Z_DEFLATED))
- return -EINVAL;
-
- n = 10;
-
-#define FNAME 0x8
- if (zbuf[3] FNAME)
- while ((zbuf[n++] != 0) (n len));
-
- bp-strm-next_in = zbuf + n;
- bp-strm-avail_in = len - n;
- bp-strm-next_out = bp-gunzip_buf;
- bp-strm-avail_out = FW_BUF_SIZE;
-
- rc = zlib_inflateInit2(bp-strm, -MAX_WBITS);
- if (rc != Z_OK)
- return rc;
-
- rc = zlib_inflate(bp-strm, Z_FINISH);
-
- *outlen = FW_BUF_SIZE - bp-strm-avail_out;
- *outbuf = bp-gunzip_buf;
-
- if ((rc != Z_OK) (rc != Z_STREAM_END))
- printk(KERN_ERR PFX %s: Firmware decompression error: %s\n,
- bp-dev-name, bp-strm-msg);
-
- zlib_inflateEnd(bp-strm);
-
- if (rc == Z_STREAM_END)
- return 0;
-
return rc;
}
@@ -2902,22 +2859,21 @@ load_cpu_fw(struct bnx2 *bp, struct cpu_
/* Load the Text area. */
offset = cpu_reg-spad_base + (fw-text_addr - cpu_reg-mips_view_base);
if (fw-gz_text) {
- u32 text_len;
- void *text;
-
- rc = bnx2_gunzip(bp, fw-gz_text, fw-gz_text_len, text,
- text_len);
- if (rc)
- return rc;
-
- fw-text = text;
- }
- if (fw-gz_text) {
+ u32 *text;
int j;
+ text = vmalloc(FW_BUF_SIZE);
+ if (!text)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ rc = bnx2_gunzip(text, FW_BUF_SIZE, fw-gz_text, fw-gz_text_len);
+ if (rc 0) {
+ vfree(text);
+ return rc;
+ }
for (j = 0; j (fw-text_len / 4); j++, offset += 4) {
- REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, cpu_to_le32(fw-text[j]));
+ REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, cpu_to_le32(text[j]));
}
+ vfree(text);
}
/* Load the Data area. */
@@ -2979,27 +2935,27 @@ bnx2_init_cpus(struct bnx2 *bp)
{
struct cpu_reg cpu_reg;
struct fw_info *fw;
- int rc = 0;
+ int rc;
void *text;
- u32 text_len;
-
- if ((rc = bnx2_gunzip_init(bp)) != 0)
- return rc;
/* Initialize the RV2P processor. */
- rc = bnx2_gunzip(bp, bnx2_rv2p_proc1, sizeof(bnx2_rv2p_proc1), text,
- text_len);
- if (rc)
+ text = vmalloc(FW_BUF_SIZE);
+ if (!text)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ rc = bnx2_gunzip(text, FW_BUF_SIZE, bnx2_rv2p_proc1, sizeof(bnx2_rv2p_proc1));
+ if (rc 0) {
+ vfree(text);
goto init_cpu_err;
+ }
+ load_rv2p_fw(bp, text, rc /* == len */, RV2P_PROC1);
- load_rv2p_fw(bp, text, text_len, RV2P_PROC1);
-
- rc = bnx2_gunzip(bp, bnx2_rv2p_proc2, sizeof(bnx2_rv2p_proc2), text,
- text_len);
- if (rc)
+
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 15:49 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Please test these two patches.
I updated them according to your comments.
I've only tested patch #1. It worked after some minor modifications
below.
plain text
document
attachment
(linux-2.6.23-
rc6.bnx2-1.patch)
@@ -2767,89 +2769,44 @@ bnx2_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *dev)
spin_unlock_bh(bp-phy_lock);
}
-#define FW_BUF_SIZE0x8000
-
+/* To be moved to generic lib/ */
static int
-bnx2_gunzip_init(struct bnx2 *bp)
+bnx2_gunzip(void *gunzip_buf, unsigned sz, u8 *zbuf, int len, void **outbuf)
outbuf is no longer needed.
+ rc = zlib_inflateInit2(strm, -MAX_WBITS);
+ if (rc == Z_OK) {
+ rc = zlib_inflate(strm, Z_FINISH);
+ if (rc == Z_OK)
rc will always be Z_STREAM_END in this case since we provide a big
enough gunzip_buf for the whole blob.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:05, Michael Chan wrote:
The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often
requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things
difficult for the user.
sounds reasonable.
I see that bnx2 has support for unpacking gzipped binary blobs,
and it it the only such net driver (maybe the only such driver
in the entire tree, I didn't check).
This can be very useful for all other firmware images in other drivers.
Last night I prepared a patch which basically separates unpacking
function from bnx2-related code. Can you run-test attached patch?
Meanwhile I will prepare follow-on patch which actually moves this
function out of the driver and into lib/*.
Size difference:
# size */bn*.o
textdata bss dec hex filename
54884 816896424 142997 22e95 net/bnx2.o
55276 818236424 143523 230a3 net.org/bnx2.o
Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
vda
--- linux-2.6.23-rc6.org/drivers/net/bnx2.c Tue Sep 11 22:33:54 2007
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc6.gunzip/drivers/net/bnx2.c Wed Sep 19 00:01:19 2007
@@ -2767,93 +2767,61 @@
spin_unlock_bh(bp-phy_lock);
}
-#define FW_BUF_SIZE 0x8000
-
+/* To be moved to generic lib/ */
static int
-bnx2_gunzip_init(struct bnx2 *bp)
+bnx2_gunzip(u8 *zbuf, int len, void **outbuf)
{
- if ((bp-gunzip_buf = vmalloc(FW_BUF_SIZE)) == NULL)
- goto gunzip_nomem1;
+ struct z_stream_s *strm;
+ void *gunzip_buf;
+ int rc;
+ int sz;
- if ((bp-strm = kmalloc(sizeof(*bp-strm), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL)
- goto gunzip_nomem2;
+ /* gzip header (1f,8b,08... 10 bytes total + possible asciz filename)
+ * is stripped, 32-bit unpacked size (LE) is prepended instead */
+ sz = *zbuf++;
+ sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++;
+ sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++;
+ sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++;
- bp-strm-workspace = kmalloc(zlib_inflate_workspacesize(), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (bp-strm-workspace == NULL)
+ rc = -ENOMEM;
+ gunzip_buf = vmalloc(sz);
+ if (gunzip_buf == NULL)
+ goto gunzip_nomem1;
+ strm = kmalloc(sizeof(*strm), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (strm == NULL)
+ goto gunzip_nomem2;
+ strm-workspace = kmalloc(zlib_inflate_workspacesize(), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (strm-workspace == NULL)
goto gunzip_nomem3;
- return 0;
+ strm-next_in = zbuf;
+ strm-avail_in = len;
+ strm-next_out = gunzip_buf;
+ strm-avail_out = sz;
-gunzip_nomem3:
- kfree(bp-strm);
- bp-strm = NULL;
+ rc = zlib_inflateInit2(strm, -MAX_WBITS);
+ if (rc == Z_OK) {
+ rc = zlib_inflate(strm, Z_FINISH);
+ if (rc == Z_OK) {
+ rc = sz - strm-avail_out;
+ *outbuf = gunzip_buf;
+ } else
+ rc = -EINVAL;
+ zlib_inflateEnd(strm);
+ } else
+ rc = -EINVAL;
+ kfree(strm-workspace);
+gunzip_nomem3:
+ kfree(strm);
gunzip_nomem2:
- vfree(bp-gunzip_buf);
- bp-gunzip_buf = NULL;
-
+ if (rc != Z_OK)
+ vfree(gunzip_buf);
gunzip_nomem1:
- printk(KERN_ERR PFX %s: Cannot allocate firmware buffer for
- uncompression.\n, bp-dev-name);
- return -ENOMEM;
+ return rc; /* returns Z_OK (0) if successful */
}
static void
-bnx2_gunzip_end(struct bnx2 *bp)
-{
- kfree(bp-strm-workspace);
-
- kfree(bp-strm);
- bp-strm = NULL;
-
- if (bp-gunzip_buf) {
- vfree(bp-gunzip_buf);
- bp-gunzip_buf = NULL;
- }
-}
-
-static int
-bnx2_gunzip(struct bnx2 *bp, u8 *zbuf, int len, void **outbuf, int *outlen)
-{
- int n, rc;
-
- /* check gzip header */
- if ((zbuf[0] != 0x1f) || (zbuf[1] != 0x8b) || (zbuf[2] != Z_DEFLATED))
- return -EINVAL;
-
- n = 10;
-
-#define FNAME 0x8
- if (zbuf[3] FNAME)
- while ((zbuf[n++] != 0) (n len));
-
- bp-strm-next_in = zbuf + n;
- bp-strm-avail_in = len - n;
- bp-strm-next_out = bp-gunzip_buf;
- bp-strm-avail_out = FW_BUF_SIZE;
-
- rc = zlib_inflateInit2(bp-strm, -MAX_WBITS);
- if (rc != Z_OK)
- return rc;
-
- rc = zlib_inflate(bp-strm, Z_FINISH);
-
- *outlen = FW_BUF_SIZE - bp-strm-avail_out;
- *outbuf = bp-gunzip_buf;
-
- if ((rc != Z_OK) (rc != Z_STREAM_END))
- printk(KERN_ERR PFX %s: Firmware decompression error: %s\n,
- bp-dev-name, bp-strm-msg);
-
- zlib_inflateEnd(bp-strm);
-
- if (rc == Z_STREAM_END)
- return 0;
-
- return rc;
-}
-
-static void
load_rv2p_fw(struct bnx2 *bp, u32 *rv2p_code, u32 rv2p_code_len,
u32 rv2p_proc)
{
@@ -2902,22 +2870,16 @@
/* Load the Text area. */
offset = cpu_reg-spad_base + (fw-text_addr - cpu_reg-mips_view_base);
if (fw-gz_text) {
- u32 text_len;
- void *text;
-
- rc = bnx2_gunzip(bp, fw-gz_text, fw-gz_text_len, text,
- text_len);
- if (rc)
- return rc;
-
- fw-text = text;
- }
- if (fw-gz_text) {
+ u32 *text;
int j;
+ rc = bnx2_gunzip(fw-gz_text, fw-gz_text_len, (void*) text);
+ if (rc 0)
+ return rc;
for (j = 0; j (fw-text_len / 4); j++, offset += 4) {
- REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, cpu_to_le32(fw-text[j]));
+ REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, cpu_to_le32(text[j]));
}
+ vfree(text);
}
/* Load the Data area. */
@@ -2979,28 +2941,22 @@
{
struct cpu_reg cpu_reg;
struct fw_info *fw;
- int rc = 0;
+ int rc;
void *text;
- u32 text_len;
- if ((rc =
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
David Miller wrote: From: Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:51 -0700 The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things difficult for the user. The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to change. I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware(). Like I said, I think neither should change and the driver should be fully functional when built statically into the kernel. Is that a suggestion that the driver work differently when built as a module or built in? I've seen that behavior many time over the years, but it usually not deliberate. ;-) -- Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
From: Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:40:14 -0400 Is that a suggestion that the driver work differently when built as a module or built in? Absolutely. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Michael Chan wrote: The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things difficult for the user. sorry didn't check, what's the license of the firmware? The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to change. I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware(). well thanks that would help us a lot, we have to strip the firmware for Debian for the upcoming Lenny release. as the shipping exception for the previous 2 releases will not be granted again. so a separate firmware would be great. also afaik only some boards need it. it is a pressing need for us as tg3 with stripped firmware of course doesn't build. -- maks - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
From: maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:33:18 +0200 we have to strip the firmware for Debian for the upcoming Lenny release. Why do you have to? The vendor has given you explicit rights to distribute it: * Firmware is: * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, * Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation. * * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware * data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright * notice is accompanying it. This whole firmware stripping thing in debian is beyond rediculious and only serves to hurt users. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
hello dave, i appreciate a lot your opinon, but please cool down. this is not a four spin on your beloved pipe. :) On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:38:32AM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:33:18 +0200 we have to strip the firmware for Debian for the upcoming Lenny release. Why do you have to? The vendor has given you explicit rights to distribute it: * Firmware is: *Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, *Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation. * *Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware *data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright *notice is accompanying it. afair the trouble is that it does not give permission to change unlike some other gpl or bsd licensed blob. so it is dfsg non-free and not suitable for main distribution. This whole firmware stripping thing in debian is beyond rediculious and only serves to hurt users. i'm not of the d-legal department, but seeing free firmwares would be cool. -- maks - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote: Anyway - if we again consider klibc I will do my best to make the build stuff as smooth as possible. Sam nitpicking mode on currently klibc has tendency to rebuild a bit too much if you touch some part of it, seen in usr/utils for the main klibc i agree that it makes sense -- maks - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
maximilian attems wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote: Anyway - if we again consider klibc I will do my best to make the build stuff as smooth as possible. Sam nitpicking mode on currently klibc has tendency to rebuild a bit too much if you touch some part of it, seen in usr/utils for the main klibc i agree that it makes sense Could you give a concrete example? -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:12:38AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Could you give a concrete example? -hpa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/klibc$ touch usr/utils/mount_main.c [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/klibc$ make KLIBCCC usr/utils/mount_main.o KLIBCLD usr/utils/static/halt LN usr/utils/static/reboot LN usr/utils/static/poweroff KLIBCLD usr/utils/shared/halt LN usr/utils/shared/reboot LN usr/utils/shared/poweroff KLIBCLD usr/utils/static/chroot KLIBCLD usr/utils/static/dd snipp -- maks - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
Hi Maks. On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 07:18:41PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:12:38AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Could you give a concrete example? -hpa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/klibc$ touch usr/utils/mount_main.c [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/klibc$ make KLIBCCC usr/utils/mount_main.o KLIBCLD usr/utils/static/halt LN usr/utils/static/reboot LN usr/utils/static/poweroff KLIBCLD usr/utils/shared/halt LN usr/utils/shared/reboot LN usr/utils/shared/poweroff KLIBCLD usr/utils/static/chroot KLIBCLD usr/utils/static/dd snipp I do not recall the details at the moment but I recall I had to do this tradeoff for some reasons. I do not say it is not fixable but when I did the static-y support I recall I took a shortcut or two under the assumption that everything build by klibc was anyway so simple that compiling a bit too much was no harm. Too buried with other stuff right now. But feel free to poke me in roughly a month and I will take a deeper look. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 09:30 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: + /* gzip header (1f,8b,08... 10 bytes total + possible asciz filename) +* is stripped, 32-bit unpacked size (LE) is prepended instead */ + sz = *zbuf++; + sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++; + sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++; + sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++; I don't have a problem with removing the gzip header. It doesn't contain very useful information other than a valid header for sanity check. But I don't think we need to arbitrarily add the unpacked size in front of the gzipped data. The driver knows the size (e.g. the size of RAM on the chip) and should pass it to the call. The driver should also allocate the memory for the unpacked data instead of allocating the memory inside the call and freeing it by the caller. For example, the driver may need to use pci_alloc_consistent() if the firmware is to be DMA'ed to the chip. Other than that, everything else looks fine. Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 22:00, Michael Chan wrote: On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 09:30 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: + /* gzip header (1f,8b,08... 10 bytes total + possible asciz filename) +* is stripped, 32-bit unpacked size (LE) is prepended instead */ + sz = *zbuf++; + sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++; + sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++; + sz = (sz 8) + *zbuf++; I don't have a problem with removing the gzip header. It doesn't contain very useful information other than a valid header for sanity check. But I don't think we need to arbitrarily add the unpacked size in front of the gzipped data. The driver knows the size (e.g. the size of RAM on the chip) and should pass it to the call. The driver should also allocate the memory for the unpacked data instead of allocating the memory inside the call and freeing it by the caller. For example, the driver may need to use pci_alloc_consistent() if the firmware is to be DMA'ed to the chip. Other than that, everything else looks fine. Thanks. Are you saying that you successfully run-tested it? -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 21:29 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: Are you saying that you successfully run-tested it? I've only reviewed the code. Let's resolve these issues first before testing the code. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 18:23 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Hi Michael,
In bnx2_fw.h I see the following:
static u32 bnx2_RXP_b06FwBss[(0x13dc/4) + 1] = { 0x0 };
static struct fw_info bnx2_rxp_fw_06 = {
...
.bss= bnx2_RXP_b06FwBss,
...
};
I grepped for the usage of .bss member (grepped for '[.]bss[^_]')
and it is used only here:
if (fw-bss) {
int j;
for (j = 0; j (fw-bss_len/4); j++, offset += 4) {
REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, fw-bss[j]);
}
}
If I understand it correctly, you read zero words one by one from
bnx2_RXP_b06FwBss and writing them into the card. This is very
suboptimal usage of nearly 5k of kernel unswappable memory.
Do you plan to fix it?
We can compress all the different sections of the firmware. Currently,
we only compress the biggest chunks and the rest are uncompressed.
These zeros should compress to almost nothing. But I agree that the
firmware is still big.
Do you have any plans to switch to request_firmware() interface,
which will allow you to avoid keeping firmware in unswappable kernel
memory and thus free ~80k?
Matching the correct version of the firmware with the driver is the main
issue.
David, what's your opinion on this?
$ size bnx2.o
textdata bss dec hex filename
52255 815516360 140166 22386 bnx2.o
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 18:55 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:45, Michael Chan wrote: We can compress all the different sections of the firmware. Currently, we only compress the biggest chunks and the rest are uncompressed. These zeros should compress to almost nothing. But I agree that the firmware is still big. You don't need to store and fetch zeros at all. You *know* that they are zeros, right? So do this: - REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, fw-bss[j]); + REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, 0); Good point. We can do that. Looking at the file, there are other non- zero data that can be compressed to save some more room. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
From: Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:45:14 -0700 On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 18:23 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: Do you have any plans to switch to request_firmware() interface, which will allow you to avoid keeping firmware in unswappable kernel memory and thus free ~80k? Matching the correct version of the firmware with the driver is the main issue. David, what's your opinion on this? I don't like it because it means people have to setup full initrd's in order to do network booting with such network cards. But the days of my opinion mattering on that issue are long gone, the momentum is just too greatly behind using request_firmware() across the board, so there is no reason for bnx2 to be any different. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:45, Michael Chan wrote: We can compress all the different sections of the firmware. Currently, we only compress the biggest chunks and the rest are uncompressed. These zeros should compress to almost nothing. But I agree that the firmware is still big. You don't need to store and fetch zeros at all. You *know* that they are zeros, right? So do this: - REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, fw-bss[j]); + REG_WR_IND(bp, offset, 0); -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
From: H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:41:34 -0700 David Miller wrote: I don't like it because it means people have to setup full initrd's in order to do network booting with such network cards. klibc could help with that, if there is interest in exploring that avenue again. I appreciate the effort you put into klibc and the offer to make initrd's easier to build. But the point is that the initrd shouldn't be necessary in the first place. There becomes zero point in building these drivers statically into the kernel, which many of us do specifically to avoid module loading, initrds, and all that fuss. Because the driver is totally crippled even though it's been fully built into the main kernel image. I mean, it's so incredibly stupid and makes kernel development that much more difficult. Every new dependency, be it requiring initrd or something else, is one more barrier added to kernel development. I really pine for the days where everything was so simple, and initrd and modules were the odd ball cases, most developers built everything into their kernel image. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
From: Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:51 -0700 The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things difficult for the user. The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to change. I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware(). Like I said, I think neither should change and the driver should be fully functional when built statically into the kernel. :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
David Miller wrote: From: H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:41:34 -0700 David Miller wrote: I don't like it because it means people have to setup full initrd's in order to do network booting with such network cards. klibc could help with that, if there is interest in exploring that avenue again. I appreciate the effort you put into klibc and the offer to make initrd's easier to build. But the point is that the initrd shouldn't be necessary in the first place. There becomes zero point in building these drivers statically into the kernel, which many of us do specifically to avoid module loading, initrds, and all that fuss. Because the driver is totally crippled even though it's been fully built into the main kernel image. I mean, it's so incredibly stupid and makes kernel development that much more difficult. Every new dependency, be it requiring initrd or something else, is one more barrier added to kernel development. I really pine for the days where everything was so simple, and initrd and modules were the odd ball cases, most developers built everything into their kernel image. Well, what I was referring to here, of course, was the initramfs integrated in the kernel image, so it all comes out of the kernel build tree and produces a single bootable image. The fact that part of it contains userspace code is in that way invisible. That was kind of the point here, and the only reason for pushing klibc into the kernel build tree at all. Under the distros use external initrd anyway school of thought, whatever libc used for that can be external anyway. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
From: H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:27:04 -0700 Well, what I was referring to here, of course, was the initramfs integrated in the kernel image, so it all comes out of the kernel build tree and produces a single bootable image. The fact that part of it contains userspace code is in that way invisible. That was kind of the point here, and the only reason for pushing klibc into the kernel build tree at all. Under the distros use external initrd anyway school of thought, whatever libc used for that can be external anyway. Sounds good to me :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 01:08:10PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:27:04 -0700 Well, what I was referring to here, of course, was the initramfs integrated in the kernel image, so it all comes out of the kernel build tree and produces a single bootable image. The fact that part of it contains userspace code is in that way invisible. That was kind of the point here, and the only reason for pushing klibc into the kernel build tree at all. Under the distros use external initrd anyway school of thought, whatever libc used for that can be external anyway. Sounds good to me :) Except there seems to be great resistance to include userland code in the kernel as demonstrated at last KS. Or this is maybe just a single vocal person and the topic were brought up late? Anyway - if we again consider klibc I will do my best to make the build stuff as smooth as possible. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
Sam Ravnborg wrote: Except there seems to be great resistance to include userland code in the kernel as demonstrated at last KS. Or this is maybe just a single vocal person and the topic were brought up late? Anyway - if we again consider klibc I will do my best to make the build stuff as smooth as possible. At least as of the last merged tree it was very smooth indeed, thanks to your help. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:21:50PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:51 -0700 The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things difficult for the user. The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to change. I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware(). Like I said, I think neither should change and the driver should be fully functional when built statically into the kernel. Michael, doesn't a functional-yet-suboptimal firmware exist ? I mean, just the same principle as we all have kernels, boot CDs, statically built tools, etc... which run everywhere. If you have such a beast, maybe it would be a good start to have it in the kernel, and provide the users with the ability to upgrade the firmware once the system is able to do more complex things. Just a thought... Regards, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:31:34PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:30:25 +0200 On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:21:50PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:51 -0700 The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things difficult for the user. The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to change. I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware(). Like I said, I think neither should change and the driver should be fully functional when built statically into the kernel. Michael, doesn't a functional-yet-suboptimal firmware exist ? I mean, just the same principle as we all have kernels, boot CDs, statically built tools, etc... which run everywhere. If you have such a beast, maybe it would be a good start to have it in the kernel, and provide the users with the ability to upgrade the firmware once the system is able to do more complex things. Just a thought... So let's save 60K instead of 80K. That's not for this reason I said this. Michael said the firmware needs to be updated somewhat often. What I was wondering was if it was not possible to stick to a stable one (and hopefully small) so that the driver could require less frequent updates. Sorry if it's not the main point of the discussion, but I grepped on this :-) I mean, the entire discussion is just plain silly :) yes, possibly :-) Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
From: Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:30:25 +0200 On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:21:50PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:51 -0700 The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things difficult for the user. The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to change. I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware(). Like I said, I think neither should change and the driver should be fully functional when built statically into the kernel. Michael, doesn't a functional-yet-suboptimal firmware exist ? I mean, just the same principle as we all have kernels, boot CDs, statically built tools, etc... which run everywhere. If you have such a beast, maybe it would be a good start to have it in the kernel, and provide the users with the ability to upgrade the firmware once the system is able to do more complex things. Just a thought... So let's save 60K instead of 80K. I mean, the entire discussion is just plain silly :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: bnx2 dirver's firmware images
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:37 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: Michael, doesn't a functional-yet-suboptimal firmware exist ? I mean, just the same principle as we all have kernels, boot CDs, statically built tools, etc... which run everywhere. If you have such a beast, maybe it would be a good start to have it in the kernel, and provide the users with the ability to upgrade the firmware once the system is able to do more complex things. Just a thought... So let's save 60K instead of 80K. That's not for this reason I said this. Michael said the firmware needs to be updated somewhat often. What I was wondering was if it was not possible to stick to a stable one (and hopefully small) so that the driver could require less frequent updates. Sorry if it's not the main point of the discussion, but I grepped on this :-) The bnx2 chip requires a lot of firmware to begin with, so it won't save much space no matter what version is used in the kernel. We update the firmware to fix bugs and sometimes to add new features. New features often require matching changes in the driver. For example, we're planning to add S/G support for jumbo rx frames and this requires changes in both driver and firmware. It's possible to make the driver work with multiple firmware versions, but that adds complexity to enable/disable certain features. Testing also becomes more difficult as it has to cover different combinations. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
