Re: [PATCH] firmware loader: inform direct failure when udev loader is disabled

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Tue, 1 Jul 2014 11:54:24 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
> >
> > Now that the udev firmware loader is optional request_firmware()
> > will not provide any information on the kernel ring buffer if
> > direct firmware loading failed and udev firmware loading is disabled.
> > If no information is needed request_firmware_direct() should be used
> > for optional firmware, at which point drivers can take on the onus
> > over informing of any failures, if udev firmware loading is disabled
> > though we should at the very least provide some sort of information
> > as when the udev loader was enabled by default back in the days.
> >
> > With this change with a simple firmware load test module [0]:
> >
> > Example output without FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK
> >
> > platform fake-dev.0: Direct firmware load for fake.bin failed with error -2
> >
> > Example without FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK
> >
> > platform fake-dev.0: Direct firmware load for fake.bin failed with error -2
> > platform fake-dev.0: Falling back to user helper
> >
> > Without this change without FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK we get no output
> > logged upon failure.
> >
> > [0] https://github.com/mcgrof/fake-firmware-test.git
> >
> > Cc: Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>
> > Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Cc: Abhay Salunke <Abhay_Salunke@dell.com>
> > Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > Cc: Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>
> > Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com>
> > ---
> >
> >  drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 12 ++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> > index 46ea5f4..23274d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> > @@ -101,8 +101,10 @@ static inline long firmware_loading_timeout(void)
> >  #define FW_OPT_NOWAIT  (1U << 1)
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER
> >  #define FW_OPT_USERHELPER      (1U << 2)
> > +#define FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN       0
> >  #else
> >  #define FW_OPT_USERHELPER      0
> > +#define FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN       (1U << 3)
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK
> >  #define FW_OPT_FALLBACK                FW_OPT_USERHELPER
> > @@ -1116,10 +1118,11 @@ _request_firmware(const struct firmware **firmware_p, const char *name,
> >
> >         ret = fw_get_filesystem_firmware(device, fw->priv);
> >         if (ret) {
> > -               if (opt_flags & FW_OPT_USERHELPER) {
> > +               if (opt_flags & (FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN | FW_OPT_USERHELPER))
> >                         dev_warn(device,
> > -                                "Direct firmware load failed with error %d\n",
> > -                                ret);
> > +                                "Direct firmware load for %s failed with error %d\n",
> > +                                name, ret);
> 
> Maybe the warning can be always printed out since
> (FW_OPT_FAIL_WARN | FW_OPT_USERHELPER) should be
> always true.

Yes, it'd be simpler.  Let's reduce lines! :)


Takashi