On 21-06-19, 21:46, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2019 10:59:13 AM CEST Vinod Koul wrote:
> > Allow multiple firmware file versions in table and load them in
> > increasing order as we find them in the file system.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Yoshihiro Shimoda <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c
> > index 771948ce3d38..1fb890984d6d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-pci.c
> > @@ -336,13 +336,19 @@ static const struct renesas_fw_entry {
> > * - uPD720201 ES 2.0 sample whose revision ID is 2.
> > * - uPD720201 ES 2.1 sample & CS sample & Mass product, ID is 3.
> > * - uPD720202 ES 2.0 sample & CS sample & Mass product, ID is 2.
> > + *
> > + * Entry expected_version should be kept in increasing order for a
> > + * chip, so that driver will pick first version and if that fails
> > + * then next one will be picked
>
> Wouldn't it be better to do that in reverse order and try the latest
> firmware first? And then fall back to the older ones?
Yeah that seems better will update the order.
>
> > */
> > { "K2013080.mem", 0x0014, 0x02, 0x2013 },
> > { "K2013080.mem", 0x0014, 0x03, 0x2013 },
> > + { "K2026090.mem", 0x0014, 0x03, 0x2026 },
> > { "K2013080.mem", 0x0015, 0x02, 0x2013 },
> The uPD720202 (ProductID 0x0015 with rev 0x02) also
> works with the K2026090.mem I found online.
>
> so,
>
> + { "K2026090.mem", 0x0015, 0x02, 0x2026 },
Thanks for checking out, I will add this add send updated patch
--
~Vinod
