[PATCH] bcm43xx-softmac: improve wrong firmware message

[PATCH] bcm43xx-softmac: improve wrong firmware message

[Larry Finger]

An error message is changed to a printk as the original dprintk would
be optimized away if debugging were not enabled. If the error is triggered,
a more meaningful message is returned.

Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger-tQ5ms3gMjBLk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
---

John,

This patch incorporates Michael's comments.

Larry

Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c
===================================================================
--- wireless-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c
+++ wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c
@@ -2405,9 +2405,10 @@ static int bcm43xx_chip_init(struct bcm4
 				   BCM43xx_UCODE_TIME) & 0x1f);
 
 	if ( value16 > 0x128 ) {
-		dprintk(KERN_ERR PFX
-			"Firmware: no support for microcode rev > 0x128\n");
-		err = -1;
+		printk(KERN_ERR PFX
+			"Firmware: no support for microcode extracted "
+			"from version 4.x binary drivers.\n");
+		err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
 		goto err_release_fw;
 	}

Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx-softmac: improve wrong firmware message

[Martin Langer]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 03:29:04PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> An error message is changed to a printk as the original dprintk would
> be optimized away if debugging were not enabled. If the error is triggered,
> a more meaningful message is returned.
> 
>  
>  	if ( value16 > 0x128 ) {
> -		dprintk(KERN_ERR PFX
> -			"Firmware: no support for microcode rev > 0x128\n");
> -		err = -1;
> +		printk(KERN_ERR PFX
> +			"Firmware: no support for microcode extracted "
> +			"from version 4.x binary drivers.\n");

Why not writing both (ucode rev and driver version)? Something like 

	"from version 4.x binary drivers (rev>0x128).\n"

BTW, if anybody needs the relationship between ucode revsion and driver 
version then he should look at the table here:

http://www.langerland.de/linux/bcm43xx/firmware.html


Martin

Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx-softmac: improve wrong firmware message

[Larry Finger]

Martin Langer wrote:
> 
> Why not writing both (ucode rev and driver version)? Something like 
> 
> 	"from version 4.x binary drivers (rev>0x128).\n"
> 
> BTW, if anybody needs the relationship between ucode revsion and driver 
> version then he should look at the table here:
> 
> http://www.langerland.de/linux/bcm43xx/firmware.html

I could do that; however, I think this error message may have a short life as 
I'm just now looking at Michael's v4 firmware revisions for d80211 with an eye 
toward porting them to softmac.

John - what do you think?

Larry

Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx-softmac: improve wrong firmware message

[Michael Buesch]

On Wednesday 13 September 2006 00:06, Larry Finger wrote:
> Martin Langer wrote:
> > 
> > Why not writing both (ucode rev and driver version)? Something like 
> > 
> > 	"from version 4.x binary drivers (rev>0x128).\n"
> > 
> > BTW, if anybody needs the relationship between ucode revsion and driver 
> > version then he should look at the table here:
> > 
> > http://www.langerland.de/linux/bcm43xx/firmware.html
> 
> I could do that; however, I think this error message may have a short life as 
> I'm just now looking at Michael's v4 firmware revisions for d80211 with an eye 
> toward porting them to softmac.

Please note that it's incomplete.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx-softmac: improve wrong firmware message

[John W. Linville]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:06:05PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> Martin Langer wrote:
> >
> >Why not writing both (ucode rev and driver version)? Something like 
> >
> >	"from version 4.x binary drivers (rev>0x128).\n"
> >
> >BTW, if anybody needs the relationship between ucode revsion and driver 
> >version then he should look at the table here:
> >
> >http://www.langerland.de/linux/bcm43xx/firmware.html
> 
> I could do that; however, I think this error message may have a short life 
> as I'm just now looking at Michael's v4 firmware revisions for d80211 with 
> an eye toward porting them to softmac.
> 
> John - what do you think?

Let's just take the new/current patch as-is.  Someone who understands
"rev > 0x128" should be able to find the message in the code for
himself... :-)

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org