lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: add a function to load optional firmware v2
Date
Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:

> On 3/13/2018 5:46 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:16:34PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * request_firmware_optional: - request for an optional fw module
>>>>>> + * @firmware_p: pointer to firmware image
>>>>>> + * @name: name of firmware file
>>>>>> + * @device: device for which firmware is being loaded
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * This function is similar in behaviour to request_firmware(), except
>>>>>> + * it doesn't produce warning messages when the file is not found.
>>>>>> + **/
>>>>>> +int
>>>>>> +request_firmware_optional(const struct firmware **firmware_p, const char *name,
>>>>>> + struct device *device)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* Need to pin this module until return */
>>>>>> + __module_get(THIS_MODULE);
>>>>>> + ret = _request_firmware(firmware_p, name, device, NULL, 0,
>>>>>> + FW_OPT_UEVENT | FW_OPT_NO_WARN );
>>>>>> + module_put(THIS_MODULE);
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(request_firmware_optional);
>>>>>
>>>>> New exported symbols for the firmware API should be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
>>>>
>>>> To me the word optional feels weird to me. For example, in ath10k I
>>>> suspect we would be only calling request_firmware_optional() with all
>>>> firmware and not request_firmware() at all.
>>>>
>>>> How about request_firmware_nowarn()? That would even match the
>>>> documentation above.
>>>
>>> _nowarn() works with me. Do you at least want the return value to give
>>> an error value if no file was found? This way the driver can decide
>>> when to issue an error if it wants to.
>>
>> Yes, it would be very good to return the error value to ath10k. That way
>> we can give a proper error message to the user if we can't find a
>> suitable firmware image.
>
> I fully agree with the _nowarn() and returning an error. However, the
> firmware_p parameter (btw. do we really want the _p postfix?)

Oh yeah, that _p is ugly. Please get rid of it, hungarian notation is
awful.

> is an output parameter which will be null in case of an error so do
> you really need a specific error code for the proper error message.

Sometimes the error code helps with debugging. But let's ask it this
way: why would we NOT return an error code? What would we gain from
that? I don't see any advantage from dropping the error code, on the
contrary better to be consistent with request_firmware() to avoid any
confusion.

--
Kalle Valo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 09:50    [W:0.069 / U:3.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site