Re: [PATCH] vxge: Declare MODULE_FIRMWARE usage

[Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> wrote:
> Cc: Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c |    9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c
> index de21904..d4832b2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c
> @@ -4203,6 +4203,9 @@ out:
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> +#define VXGE_PXE_FIRMWARE "vxge/X3fw-pxe.ncf"
> +#define VXGE_FIRMWARE "vxge/X3fw.ncf"
> +
>  static int vxge_probe_fw_update(struct vxgedev *vdev)
>  {
>         u32 maj, min, bld;
> @@ -4245,9 +4248,9 @@ static int vxge_probe_fw_update(struct vxgedev *vdev)
>                         }
>         }
>         if (gpxe)
> -               fw_name = "vxge/X3fw-pxe.ncf";
> +               fw_name = VXGE_PXE_FIRMWARE;
>         else
> -               fw_name = "vxge/X3fw.ncf";
> +               fw_name = VXGE_FIRMWARE;
>
>         ret = vxge_fw_upgrade(vdev, fw_name, 0);
>         /* -EINVAL and -ENOENT are not fatal errors for flashing firmware on
> @@ -4855,3 +4858,5 @@ vxge_closer(void)
>  }
>  module_init(vxge_starter);
>  module_exit(vxge_closer);
> +MODULE_FIRMWARE(VXGE_PXE_FIRMWARE);
> +MODULE_FIRMWARE(VXGE_FIRMWARE);

IIUC, MODULE_FIRMWARE is only necessary for devices that need firmware
to operate.  vxge hardware has an image in flash on the nic, and the
modified code is used to update the firmware image on the adapter.
So, this change isn't doing what you want it to do.

Also, wasn't this already discussed (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/12/401)?

Thanks,
Jon



> --
> 1.7.9.5
>