[PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported

Sudeep Holla
2016-08-23T15:01:24Z

On 23/08/16 15:55, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 08/23/2016 04:54 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/08/16 09:23, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2016 06:46 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/08/16 11:11, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> In Amlogic GXBB Legacy SCPI, the LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SCPI_CAPABILITIES report
>>>>> as SCPI_ERR_SUPPORT, so do not fail if this command is not supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>>> index 3fe39fe..d3be4c5 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>>> @@ -1111,12 +1111,13 @@ err:
>>>>> ret = scpi_info->ops->init_versions(scpi_info);
>>>>> else
>>>>> ret = scpi_init_versions(scpi_info);
>>>>> - if (ret) {
>>>>> + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>>> dev_err(dev, "incorrect or no SCP firmware found\n");
>>>>> scpi_remove(pdev);
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not deal it in init_versions itself.
>>>>
>>>>> + if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>>> _dev_info(dev, "SCP Protocol %d.%d Firmware %d.%d.%d version\n",
>>>>> PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>>>> PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>>>
>>>> Why not have default value like 0.0 ? Just add a comment. Since get
>>>> version is exported out, IMO having default value makes more sense. What
>>>> do you think ?
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1124,15 +1125,16 @@ err:
>>>>> FW_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->firmware_version),
>>>>> FW_REV_PATCH(scpi_info->firmware_version));
>>>>>
>>>>> + ret = sysfs_create_groups(&dev->kobj, versions_groups);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "unable to create sysfs version group\n");
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Again this can stay as is if we have default.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Printing version 0.0 firmware 0.0.0 is a nonsense for me...
>>>
>>
>> OK 0.0 was a wrong example. May be 0.1 ?
>>
>> Since the driver has already exposed, hypothetically user-space can use
>> that information, so IMO, we need to expose some static version for pre-v1.0
>>
>> I am surprised that capability is not supported as this was present even
>> in that legacy SCPI. Do you know what happens if you send that command ?
>> Have you done some experiments on that ?
>>
>
> I've experimented and returns EOPNOTSUPP, Amlogic confirmed to us the command was not implemented.
>
> This a clearly a corner-case.
>

OK, thanks for the confirmation.
Not exporting anything could be kind of breaking ABI as it was not made
optional when introduced :( (you can blame me ;))

--
Regards,
Sudeep