Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
Arend van Spriel writes: >> Can you remove this patch from the series and apply the rest. Just >> verified over here the remaining patches apply cleanly on >> wireless-drivers-next. > > Hi Kalle, > > Just drop this series. I will send a V3 shortly. Ok, v2 dropped. -- Kalle Valo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 08/19/2015 10:55 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: On 08/19/2015 06:38 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: On 16 August 2015 at 08:55, Arend van Spriel wrote: From: Hante Meuleman Host platforms such as routers supported by OpenWRT can support NVRAM reading directly from internal NVRAM store. With this patch the nvram load routines will fall back to this method when there is no nvram file and support is available in the kernel. Cc: Rafał Miłecki Reviewed-by: Arend Van Spriel Reviewed-by: Franky (Zhenhui) Lin Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts Reviewed-by: Daniel (Deognyoun) Kim Signed-off-by: Hante Meuleman Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel --- V2: - addressed comments from Rafał. Well, you dropped unneeded change to the brcmf_nvram_handle_value function, but you ignored the rest of my comments. Take a look at them again please: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6767961/ Kalle, Can you remove this patch from the series and apply the rest. Just verified over here the remaining patches apply cleanly on wireless-drivers-next. Hi Kalle, Just drop this series. I will send a V3 shortly. Regards, Arend -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 20 August 2015 at 18:06, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 08/20/2015 05:53 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> On 19 August 2015 at 23:43, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/19/2015 11:21 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>
>
> On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>
>>
>> @@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ brcmf_nvram_handle_value(struct nvram_parser *nvp)
>> u32 cplen;
>>
>> c = nvp->data[nvp->pos];
>> - if (!is_nvram_char(c)) {
>> + if (!is_nvram_char(c) && (c != ' ')) {
>
>
>
> This is redundant, please drop this change.
> See fc23e81eb8f4 ("brcmfmac: allow NVRAM values to contain spaces")
done
>> @@ -426,19 +428,34 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const
>> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
>> struct brcmf_fw *fwctx = ctx;
>> u32 nvram_length = 0;
>> void *nvram = NULL;
>> + u8 *data = NULL;
>
>
>
> This can be const.
done
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually this is not done, but either way will require a cast because
>>> bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents expects char* so there is nothing gained.
>>> Unless someone will change bcm47xx_nvram_get/release_contents api to
>>> const
>>> char*.
>>
>>
>> Passing non-const pointer to function taking const one is OK. You
>> don't need casting, compiler won't complain about this.
>
>
> bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents expect a non-const pointer so the const data
> pointer needs to be cast to non-const. Which you claim is hacky.
> Here is what happens when I make data pointer const:
>
> CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.o
> drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c: In function
> ���brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done���:
> drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c:450:4: warning: passing
> argument 1 of ���bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents��� discards ���const���
> qualifier from pointer target type [enabled by default]
> bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
> ^
> In file included from
> drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c:22:0:
> include/linux/bcm47xx_nvram.h:44:20: note: expected ���char *��� but
> argument is of type ���const u8 *���
> static inline void bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(char *nvram)
> ^
>>
>> On the other hand casing const pointer to the non-const one is hacky
>> and I believe you should avoid that.
>
>
> Either way you have to do a cast from const to non-const.
>
> u8 *data => data = (u8 *)fw->data;
> const u8 *data => bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents((char *)data);
Oh, I feel silly. Yeah, you're right. In OpenWrt I was using two
separated variables and it was what basically let it work. Just ignore
that noise from me :|
--
Rafał
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 08/20/2015 05:59 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 19 August 2015 at 23:21, Arend van Spriel wrote:
subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
I really hope none of my comment was mean or anything :)
On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
+ data_len = fw->size;
+ raw_nvram = false;
+ } else {
+ data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len);
+ if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
+ goto fail;
+ raw_nvram = true;
+ }
- if (fw) {
- nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(fw->data, fw->size,
&nvram_length,
+ if (data) {
+ nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(data, data_len,
&nvram_length,
fwctx->domain_nr,
fwctx->bus_nr);
- release_firmware(fw);
- if (!nvram && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
- goto fail;
+ if (raw_nvram)
+ bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
This is cosmetical but maybe you could move above 2 lines next to the
release_firmware? So we have all freeing code at one please? Do you
think it would improve readability?
Nothing important thought. Feel free to ignore me here.
confused! The release_firmware call is removed here, right?
Yes, you removed it from the "if (data) {" condition body but also
re-added right after it. AFAIR I got an impression it may make more
sense to have something like:
if (raw_nvram)
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
I did not check whether bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents deals with data
being NULL pointer. If so, I can change it.
Regards,
Arend
if (fw)
release_firmware(fw);
but you can just ignore it if it doesn't sound clear.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 08/20/2015 05:53 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 19 August 2015 at 23:43, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 08/19/2015 11:21 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
@@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ brcmf_nvram_handle_value(struct nvram_parser *nvp)
u32 cplen;
c = nvp->data[nvp->pos];
- if (!is_nvram_char(c)) {
+ if (!is_nvram_char(c) && (c != ' ')) {
This is redundant, please drop this change.
See fc23e81eb8f4 ("brcmfmac: allow NVRAM values to contain spaces")
done
@@ -426,19 +428,34 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const
struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
struct brcmf_fw *fwctx = ctx;
u32 nvram_length = 0;
void *nvram = NULL;
+ u8 *data = NULL;
This can be const.
done
Actually this is not done, but either way will require a cast because
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents expects char* so there is nothing gained.
Unless someone will change bcm47xx_nvram_get/release_contents api to const
char*.
Passing non-const pointer to function taking const one is OK. You
don't need casting, compiler won't complain about this.
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents expect a non-const pointer so the const
data pointer needs to be cast to non-const. Which you claim is hacky.
Here is what happens when I make data pointer const:
CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.o
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c: In function
���brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done���:
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c:450:4: warning:
passing argument 1 of ���bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents��� discards
���const��� qualifier from pointer target type [enabled by default]
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
^
In file included from
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c:22:0:
include/linux/bcm47xx_nvram.h:44:20: note: expected ���char *��� but
argument is of type ���const u8 *���
static inline void bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(char *nvram)
^
On the other hand casing const pointer to the non-const one is hacky
and I believe you should avoid that.
Either way you have to do a cast from const to non-const.
u8 *data => data = (u8 *)fw->data;
const u8 *data => bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents((char *)data);
Regards,
Arend
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 19 August 2015 at 23:21, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
I really hope none of my comment was mean or anything :)
> On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>> + data_len = fw->size;
>>> + raw_nvram = false;
>>> + } else {
>>> + data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len);
>>> + if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
>>> + goto fail;
>>> + raw_nvram = true;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> - if (fw) {
>>> - nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(fw->data, fw->size,
>>> &nvram_length,
>>> + if (data) {
>>> + nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(data, data_len,
>>> &nvram_length,
>>> fwctx->domain_nr,
>>> fwctx->bus_nr);
>>> - release_firmware(fw);
>>> - if (!nvram && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
>>> - goto fail;
>>> + if (raw_nvram)
>>> + bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
>>
>>
>> This is cosmetical but maybe you could move above 2 lines next to the
>> release_firmware? So we have all freeing code at one please? Do you
>> think it would improve readability?
>> Nothing important thought. Feel free to ignore me here.
>
>
> confused! The release_firmware call is removed here, right?
Yes, you removed it from the "if (data) {" condition body but also
re-added right after it. AFAIR I got an impression it may make more
sense to have something like:
if (raw_nvram)
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
if (fw)
release_firmware(fw);
but you can just ignore it if it doesn't sound clear.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 19 August 2015 at 23:43, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 11:21 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>
>> subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
>>
>> On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
@@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ brcmf_nvram_handle_value(struct nvram_parser *nvp)
u32 cplen;
c = nvp->data[nvp->pos];
- if (!is_nvram_char(c)) {
+ if (!is_nvram_char(c) && (c != ' ')) {
>>>
>>>
>>> This is redundant, please drop this change.
>>> See fc23e81eb8f4 ("brcmfmac: allow NVRAM values to contain spaces")
>>
>>
>> done
>>
@@ -426,19 +428,34 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const
struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
struct brcmf_fw *fwctx = ctx;
u32 nvram_length = 0;
void *nvram = NULL;
+ u8 *data = NULL;
>>>
>>>
>>> This can be const.
>>
>>
>> done
>
>
> Actually this is not done, but either way will require a cast because
> bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents expects char* so there is nothing gained.
> Unless someone will change bcm47xx_nvram_get/release_contents api to const
> char*.
Passing non-const pointer to function taking const one is OK. You
don't need casting, compiler won't complain about this.
On the other hand casing const pointer to the non-const one is hacky
and I believe you should avoid that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 08/19/2015 11:21 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
@@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ brcmf_nvram_handle_value(struct nvram_parser *nvp)
u32 cplen;
c = nvp->data[nvp->pos];
- if (!is_nvram_char(c)) {
+ if (!is_nvram_char(c) && (c != ' ')) {
This is redundant, please drop this change.
See fc23e81eb8f4 ("brcmfmac: allow NVRAM values to contain spaces")
done
@@ -426,19 +428,34 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const
struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
struct brcmf_fw *fwctx = ctx;
u32 nvram_length = 0;
void *nvram = NULL;
+ u8 *data = NULL;
This can be const.
done
Actually this is not done, but either way will require a cast because
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents expects char* so there is nothing gained.
Unless someone will change bcm47xx_nvram_get/release_contents api to
const char*.
Regards,
Arend
+ size_t data_len;
+ bool raw_nvram;
brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "enter: dev=%s\n", dev_name(fwctx->dev));
- if (!fw && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
- goto fail;
+ if ((fw) && (fw->data)) {
I think I was already pointing similar coding issue to you. There is
no need for these extra braces. And if they are not needed, don't use
them. There is no point in using if (((foo))) schema just because it
works. You could be confused by macros where we sometimes need tricks
like this, but this is a standard part of code.
No confusion, just paranoid. You clearly have never been on road of
chasing compiler issues with logical condition, but indeed it can be
removed although checkpatch does not seem to be bothered with it. Will
change it.
+ data = (u8 *)fw->data;
Don't cast to workaround const != const. You won't need casting after
making local "data" a const variable.
done
+ data_len = fw->size;
+ raw_nvram = false;
+ } else {
+ data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len);
+ if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
+ goto fail;
+ raw_nvram = true;
+ }
- if (fw) {
- nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(fw->data, fw->size,
&nvram_length,
+ if (data) {
+ nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(data, data_len,
&nvram_length,
fwctx->domain_nr,
fwctx->bus_nr);
- release_firmware(fw);
- if (!nvram && !(fwctx->flags &
BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
- goto fail;
+ if (raw_nvram)
+ bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
This is cosmetical but maybe you could move above 2 lines next to the
release_firmware? So we have all freeing code at one please? Do you
think it would improve readability?
Nothing important thought. Feel free to ignore me here.
confused! The release_firmware call is removed here, right?
@@ -473,15 +490,9 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_code_done(const
struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
if (!ret)
return;
- /* when nvram is optional call .done() callback here */
- if (fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL) {
- fwctx->done(fwctx->dev, fw, NULL, 0);
- kfree(fwctx);
- return;
- }
+ brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(NULL, fwctx);
+ return;
It gave me a 5 minutes headache ;) Could you add a short comment why
you call _done anyway? Something like
/* Even if we failed to init user space fw request we may get a
platform one */
For the resulting code I don't see value adding such comment. Reading
this patch you might want Hante to explain this change, but you figured
it out. Sorry for the headache ;-)
Regards,
Arend
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
@@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ brcmf_nvram_handle_value(struct nvram_parser *nvp)
u32 cplen;
c = nvp->data[nvp->pos];
- if (!is_nvram_char(c)) {
+ if (!is_nvram_char(c) && (c != ' ')) {
This is redundant, please drop this change.
See fc23e81eb8f4 ("brcmfmac: allow NVRAM values to contain spaces")
done
@@ -426,19 +428,34 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const struct
firmware *fw, void *ctx)
struct brcmf_fw *fwctx = ctx;
u32 nvram_length = 0;
void *nvram = NULL;
+ u8 *data = NULL;
This can be const.
done
+ size_t data_len;
+ bool raw_nvram;
brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "enter: dev=%s\n", dev_name(fwctx->dev));
- if (!fw && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
- goto fail;
+ if ((fw) && (fw->data)) {
I think I was already pointing similar coding issue to you. There is
no need for these extra braces. And if they are not needed, don't use
them. There is no point in using if (((foo))) schema just because it
works. You could be confused by macros where we sometimes need tricks
like this, but this is a standard part of code.
No confusion, just paranoid. You clearly have never been on road of
chasing compiler issues with logical condition, but indeed it can be
removed although checkpatch does not seem to be bothered with it. Will
change it.
+ data = (u8 *)fw->data;
Don't cast to workaround const != const. You won't need casting after
making local "data" a const variable.
done
+ data_len = fw->size;
+ raw_nvram = false;
+ } else {
+ data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len);
+ if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
+ goto fail;
+ raw_nvram = true;
+ }
- if (fw) {
- nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(fw->data, fw->size, &nvram_length,
+ if (data) {
+ nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(data, data_len, &nvram_length,
fwctx->domain_nr, fwctx->bus_nr);
- release_firmware(fw);
- if (!nvram && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
- goto fail;
+ if (raw_nvram)
+ bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
This is cosmetical but maybe you could move above 2 lines next to the
release_firmware? So we have all freeing code at one please? Do you
think it would improve readability?
Nothing important thought. Feel free to ignore me here.
confused! The release_firmware call is removed here, right?
@@ -473,15 +490,9 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_code_done(const struct
firmware *fw, void *ctx)
if (!ret)
return;
- /* when nvram is optional call .done() callback here */
- if (fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL) {
- fwctx->done(fwctx->dev, fw, NULL, 0);
- kfree(fwctx);
- return;
- }
+ brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(NULL, fwctx);
+ return;
It gave me a 5 minutes headache ;) Could you add a short comment why
you call _done anyway? Something like
/* Even if we failed to init user space fw request we may get a platform one */
For the resulting code I don't see value adding such comment. Reading
this patch you might want Hante to explain this change, but you figured
it out. Sorry for the headache ;-)
Regards,
Arend
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 08/19/2015 06:38 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: On 16 August 2015 at 08:55, Arend van Spriel wrote: From: Hante Meuleman Host platforms such as routers supported by OpenWRT can support NVRAM reading directly from internal NVRAM store. With this patch the nvram load routines will fall back to this method when there is no nvram file and support is available in the kernel. Cc: Rafał Miłecki Reviewed-by: Arend Van Spriel Reviewed-by: Franky (Zhenhui) Lin Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts Reviewed-by: Daniel (Deognyoun) Kim Signed-off-by: Hante Meuleman Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel --- V2: - addressed comments from Rafał. Well, you dropped unneeded change to the brcmf_nvram_handle_value function, but you ignored the rest of my comments. Take a look at them again please: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6767961/ Kalle, Can you remove this patch from the series and apply the rest. Just verified over here the remaining patches apply cleanly on wireless-drivers-next. Regards, Arend -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] brcmfmac: Add support for host platform NVRAM loading.
On 16 August 2015 at 08:55, Arend van Spriel wrote: > From: Hante Meuleman > > Host platforms such as routers supported by OpenWRT can > support NVRAM reading directly from internal NVRAM store. > With this patch the nvram load routines will fall back to > this method when there is no nvram file and support is > available in the kernel. > > Cc: Rafał Miłecki > Reviewed-by: Arend Van Spriel > Reviewed-by: Franky (Zhenhui) Lin > Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts > Reviewed-by: Daniel (Deognyoun) Kim > Signed-off-by: Hante Meuleman > Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel > --- > V2: > - addressed comments from Rafał. Well, you dropped unneeded change to the brcmf_nvram_handle_value function, but you ignored the rest of my comments. Take a look at them again please: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6767961/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
