All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
To: Robert Schlabbach <robert_s@gmx.net>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] media: si2157: optionally load firmare for SI2146_A10 and
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 10:28:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211209102742.738c4eea@coco.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211209091717.3107faca@coco.lan>

Em Thu, 9 Dec 2021 09:17:17 +0100
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> escreveu:

> Em Thu, 9 Dec 2021 00:01:55 +0100
> Robert Schlabbach <robert_s@gmx.net> escreveu:
> 
> > > + case SI2146_A10:
> > > + fw_required = false;
> > > + fallthrough;
> > > case SI2141_A10:
> > > fw_name = SI2141_A10_FIRMWARE;
> > > break;    
> > 
> > I don't think this form of firmware name aliasing is
> > a good idea. The SiLabs code has a dedicated source
> > file for the ROM patch for each tuner model, even if
> > some are binary identical.
> > 
> > And in this particular case, there are not even
> > binary identical firmware patches available for these
> > two tuners, so they definitely should NOT share the
> > same firmware filename.  
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > So I propose having a clean 1:1 model <-> firmware
> > filename mapping.  
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> > For si2157/si2177 and si2148/si2158
> > it's already too late, but we should not expand this
> > error even further.  
> 
> It is not too late. It is just a matter of adding a secondary
> firmware name for those devices. if the primary (new) name
> is not found, the driver would try the old name for those
> firmwares. As this is the current namespace:
> 
> #define SI2158_A20_FIRMWARE "dvb-tuner-si2158-a20-01.fw"
> #define SI2141_A10_FIRMWARE "dvb-tuner-si2141-a10-01.fw"
> #define SI2157_A30_FIRMWARE "dvb-tuner-si2157-a30-01.fw"
> 
> We would need to have a different namespace for the newer firmware
> file model. On a quick look at the opensourced drivers, those seem to
> be the firmware structs over there:
> 
> 	$ git grep 'firmware_struct.*=.\s*{' TER|perl -ne 'print "$1\n" if m/struct.*(Si[^\[]+)/'
> 	Si2124_FW_2_1b5
> 	Si2141_FW_0_Ab23
> 	Si2141_FW_1_1b12
> 	Si2144_FW_2_1b5
> 	Si2147_FW_3_1b3
> 	Si2148_FW_2_1b11
> 	Si2151_FW_0_Ab23
> 	Si2151_FW_1_1b11
> 	Si2157_FW_3_1b3
> 	Si2158B_FW_0_Ab15
> 	Si2158B_FW_4_1b3
> 	Si2177_FW_3_1b3
> 	Si2178B_FW_0_Ab15
> 	Si2178B_FW_4_1b3
> 
> If the idea is to be as close as possible to how the original firmware are named,
> we could do, e. g. something like this:
> 
> 	$ git grep 'firmware_struct.*=.\s*{' TER|perl -ne 'tr /A-Z/a-z/; print "dvb_driver_si$1_$2.fw\n" if m/struct.*si(\w+)_fw_([^\[]+)/'
> 	dvb_driver_si2124_2_1b5.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2141_0_ab23.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2141_1_1b12.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2144_2_1b5.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2147_3_1b3.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2148_2_1b11.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2151_0_ab23.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2151_1_1b11.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2157_3_1b3.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2158b_0_ab15.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2158b_4_1b3.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2177_3_1b3.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2178b_0_ab15.fw
> 	dvb_driver_si2178b_4_1b3.fw
> 
> On other words, for si2157, for instance, the driver would first try
> to load:
> 	dvb_driver_si2157_3_1b3.fw
> if it fails, it would try:
> 	dvb-tuner-si2157-a30-01.fw
> 
> This is backward compatible and should be flexible enough to support
> different firmware for different tuners.
> 
> There are some issues, though. This would require to have all those
> firmware files generated from the opensourced sources and stored somewhere,
> assuming that the license would allow that.
> 
> Also, as the firmware files will probably be different, tests with
> the different supported models will be required to be sure that the
> code is compatible with them (as the API might have changed on
> some of those).
> 
> > More broadly, the SiLabs code actually matches the
> > applicable firmware patch to the rom_id returned by
> > the tuner. So if we wanted to do a real cleanup,
> > I would propose having a const struct table, e.g.
> > 
> > const struct {
> >     unsigned char part;
> >     unsigned char chiprev;
> >     unsigned char pmajor;
> >     unsigned char pminor;
> >     unsigned char rom_id;
> >     const char *  firmware_name
> > } supported_models[] = {
> >     { /*Si21*/41, 'A', 1, 0, 0x60, "dvb-tuner-si2141-a10-00.fw" },
> >     { /*Si21*/41, 'A', 1, 0, 0x61, "dvb-tuner-si2141-a10-01.fw" },
> >     { /*Si21*/57, 'A', 3, 0, 0x50, "dvb-tuner-si2157-a30-01.fw" },
> > (etc)
> > };  
> 
> The struct itself sounds OK to me, with some adjustments:
> 
> 1. Coding style nit:  firmware name should be, instead:
> 
> 	const char *firmware_name
> 
> 2. It would also need a:
> 
> 	const char *firmware_alt_name
> 
>    to store the old firmware namespace, e. g.:
> 	SI2158_A20_FIRMWARE, SI2141_A10_FIRMWARE and SI2157_A30_FIRMWARE.
> 
> 3. instead of placing a number (41, 57, ...) it should use defines
>    or enums.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mauro

I double-checked at the code: the A10/A20/A30 is actually not used,
just the ROM version.

So, I guess the enclosed data structs should be enough for the load
firmware code.

Regards,
Mauro

-

enum si2157_chip_type {
	SI2141 = 41,
	SI2146 = 46,
	SI2147 = 47,
	SI2148 = 48,
	SI2157 = 57,
	SI2158 = 58,
	SI2177 = 77,
};

struct si2157_firmware {
	enum si2157_chip_type type;
	unsigned char rom_id;
	bool required;
	const char *fw_name, *fw_alt_name;
};

#define SI2141_60_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2141_0_ab23.fw"
#define SI2141_61_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2141_1_1b12.fw"
#define SI2146_11_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2146_1_1b3.fw"
#define SI2147_50_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2147_3_1b3.fw"
#define SI2148_33_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2148_2_1b11.fw"
#define SI2157_50_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2157_3_1b3.fw"
#define SI2158_50_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2178b_0_ab15.fw"
#define SI2158_51_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2158b_4_1b3.fw"
#define SI2177_50_FIRMWARE "dvb_driver_si2177_3_1b3.fw"

static const struct si2157_firmware fw[] = {
	{ SI2141, true,  0x60, SI2141_60_FIRMWARE, SI2141_A10_FIRMWARE },
	{ SI2141, true,  0x61, SI2141_61_FIRMWARE, SI2141_A10_FIRMWARE },
	{ SI2146, false, 0x11, SI2146_11_FIRMWARE, NULL },
	{ SI2147, false, 0x50, SI2147_50_FIRMWARE, NULL },
	{ SI2148, true,  0x33, SI2148_33_FIRMWARE, SI2158_A20_FIRMWARE },
	{ SI2157, false, 0x50, SI2157_50_FIRMWARE, SI2157_A30_FIRMWARE },
	{ SI2158, true,  0x50, SI2158_50_FIRMWARE, SI2158_A20_FIRMWARE },
	{ SI2158, true,  0x51, SI2158_51_FIRMWARE, SI2158_A20_FIRMWARE },
	{ SI2177, true,  0x50, SI2177_50_FIRMWARE, SI2157_A30_FIRMWARE },
};

Thanks,
Mauro

      reply	other threads:[~2021-12-09  9:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-08 10:25 [PATCH RFC] media: si2157: optionally load firmare for SI2146_A10 and Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-12-08 23:01 ` Robert Schlabbach
2021-12-09  8:17   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-12-09  9:28     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20211209102742.738c4eea@coco.lan \
    --to=mchehab+huawei@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robert_s@gmx.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.