Re: [PATCH] typhoon: use request_firmware

Jaswinder Singh
2008-07-28T03:18:28Z

Hello Dave,

On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 21:43 -0400, David Dillow wrote:

> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("3com/typhoon.bin");
>
> Uhm, MODULE_FIRMWARE()?
>

Sorry, Fixed. Thanks.

> > @@ -1368,8 +1371,14 @@ typhoon_download_firmware(struct typhoon *tp)
> > int i;
> > int err;
> >
> > + err = request_firmware(&fw, fw_name, &tp->pdev->dev);
> > + if (err) {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Failed to load firmware \"%s\"\n",
> > + tp->name, fw_name);
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > err = -EINVAL;
> > - fHdr = (struct typhoon_file_header *) typhoon_firmware_image;
> > + fHdr = (struct typhoon_file_header *) fw->data;
> > image_data = (u8 *) fHdr;
> >
> > if(memcmp(fHdr->tag, "TYPHOON", 8)) {
> > @@ -1494,6 +1503,7 @@ err_out_irq:
> > pci_free_consistent(pdev, PAGE_SIZE, dpage, dpage_dma);
> >
> > err_out:
> > + release_firmware(fw);
> > return err;
> > }
>
> It is not quite this simple. By not loading the firmware on device
> probe, you have opened the door to a broken resume, and the driver will
> now try to sleep in an atomic context, when typhoon_tx_timeout() is
> called at the very least.
>

I just added the request_firmware support and
replaced ﻿typhoon_firmware_image with ﻿fw->data.
I do not think this will make any difference in rest of driver.

If you like to change the driver then it should be in another patch.

David Woodhouse, any comments.

> I've said that I was thinking about doing the conversion myself, and I
> think the firmware loader makes some sense for new drivers. But the more
> I think about converting old -- fairly static -- drivers such as
> typhoon, I wonder "what's the point?" We don't save memory, we add code,
> and we add failure points that weren't there before. Where's the upside?
>

﻿David Woodhouse, any comments.

Thank you,

Jaswinder Singh.