Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] brcmfmac: don't warn user about NVRAM if fallback to platform one succeeds

From: "Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Cc: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>,
	"Ming Lei" <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
	"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	"Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Kalle Valo" <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] brcmfmac: don't warn user about NVRAM if fallback to platform one succeeds
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:04:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <894daa616fc3bbd875e075b3096dba8e@milecki.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2b1cb64-a829-b433-2370-f2c47b9d0a5d@broadcom.com>

On 2017-02-16 09:38, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On 16-2-2017 8:26, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>> 
>> Failing to load NVRAM file isn't critical if we manage to get platform
>> one in the fallback path. It means warnings like:
>> [   10.801506] brcmfmac 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for 
>> brcm/brcmfmac43602-pcie.txt failed with error -2
>> are unnecessary & disturbing for people with platform NVRAM. This is
>> very common case for Broadcom home routers.
>> 
>> So instead of printing warning immediately with the firmware subsystem
>> let's first try our fallback code. If that fails as well, then it's a
>> right moment to print an error.
>> 
>> This should reduce amount of false reports from users seeing this
>> warning while having wireless working perfectly fine.
> 
> There are of course people with issues who take this warning as a straw
> to clutch.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>> ---
>> V2: Update commit message as it wasn't clear enough (thanks Andy) & 
>> add extra
>>     messages to the firmware.c.
>> 
>> Kalle, Arend: this patch is strictly related to the bigger 1/2. Could 
>> you ack
>> this change as I expect this patchset to be picked by Ming, Luis or 
>> Greg?
>> ---
>>  .../net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c  | 16 
>> +++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git 
>> a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c 
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c
>> index c7c1e9906500..510a76d99eee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c
>> @@ -462,8 +462,14 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const 
>> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
>>  		raw_nvram = false;
>>  	} else {
>>  		data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len);
>> -		if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
>> -			goto fail;
>> +		if (!data) {
>> +			brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "Failed to get platform NVRAM\n");
>> +			if (!(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL)) {
>> +				brcmf_err("Loading NVRAM from %s and using platform one both 
>> failed\n",
>> +					  fwctx->nvram_name);
>> +				goto fail;
>> +			}
>> +		}
>>  		raw_nvram = true;
>>  	}
>> 
>> @@ -504,9 +510,9 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_code_done(const 
>> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>>  	fwctx->code = fw;
>> -	ret = request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, true, fwctx->nvram_name,
>> -				      fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL, fwctx,
>> -				      brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done);
>> +	ret = request_firmware_async(THIS_MODULE, FW_OPT_NO_WARN,
>> +				     fwctx->nvram_name, fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL,
>> +				     fwctx, brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done);
> 
> You changed the behaviour, because of your change in patch 1/2:
> 
> -	fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_FALLBACK |
> -		(uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER);
> +	fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | opt_flags;
> 
> So: (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_UEVENT) vs (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_NO_WARN)

Sorry, I didn't realize brcmfmac needs FW_OPT_UEVENT. I'll re-add it in 
V3, just
let me wait to see if there will be more comments.