Re: [PATCH v3] brcmfmac: fix CLM load error for legacy chips when user helper is enabled

[Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>]

On 1/16/2018 9:55 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 1/16/2018 7:14 AM, Wright Feng wrote:
>> For legacy chips without CLM blob files, kernel with user helper function
>> returns -EAGAIN when we request_firmware(), and then driver got failed
>> when bringing up legacy chips. We expect the CLM blob file for legacy
>> chip
>> is not existence in firmware path, but the -ENOENT error is
>> transferred to
>> -EAGAIN in firmware_class.c with user helper.
>> Because of that, we continue with CLM data currently present in firmware
>> if getting error from doing request_firmware().

Forgot to mention, but also please add following Cc: as it will probably 
not make it before the merge window opens.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.15.y
> Reviewed-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com>
>> ---
>> v2: remove retry from patch v1
>> v3: remove redundant log print
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c | 9 +++------
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c
>> index 6a59d06..b0ef0e7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c
>> @@ -182,12 +182,9 @@ static int brcmf_c_process_clm_blob(struct
>> brcmf_if *ifp)
>>
>>       err = request_firmware(&clm, clm_name, dev);
>>       if (err) {
>> -        if (err == -ENOENT) {
>> -            brcmf_dbg(INFO, "continue with CLM data currently present
>> in firmware\n");
>> -            return 0;
>> -        }
>> -        brcmf_err("request CLM blob file failed (%d)\n", err);
>> -        return err;
>> +        brcmf_info("no clm_blob available(%d), device may have
>> limited channels available\n",
>> +               err);
>> +        return 0;
>
> Looking good. However, let's nitpick (my bad). Please make it
> "..available (err=%d), ...".
>
> Regards,
> Arend
>