linux-kernel - Re: Could we have request_firmware_nowait with FW_OPT_NO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:53:38 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        brcm80211 development <brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: Could we have request_firmware_nowait with FW_OPT_NO_WARN?

On 12 December 2016 at 10:26, Arend Van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:
> On 12-12-2016 9:32, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> On 12 December 2016 at 09:12, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2016-12-10 at 16:54 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> In brcmfmac we use request_firmware_nowait and if fetching firmware
>>>> with NVRAM variables fails then we try to fallback to the platform
>>>> one (see brcmf_fw_request_code_done & brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done).
>>>>
>>>> Some problem for us is that on devices with platform NVRAM we get
>>>> this error:
>>>> Direct firmware load for brcm/brcmfmac43602-pcie.txt failed with error -2
>>>
>>> This also happens with iwlwifi, because it requests multiple firmware
>>> versions starting at the most recent supported one (which is often not
>>> released at the same time).
>>
>> Good to know it may help others as well!
>>
>>
>>> So yeah, this would be really useful - why don't you just make a patch
>>> with some kind of flags, whether it's FW_OPT_* or new flags?
>>
>> OK! If noone will come with any special comments/ideas soon, I'll
>> propose a patch for using some flags.
>>
>> FWIW, meanwhile I submitted
>> [PATCH V2] firmware: simplify defining and handling FW_OPT_FALLBACK
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9469875/
>
> Similar thread couple of months ago [1]
>
> (...)
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2016-July/thread.html#8026

Oh, now I see it's a bit messy topic and not clearly maintained class.
It seems more ppl were confused by the API. I think having many
unrelated behavior bounded to few functions caused some of this
confusion. Let's hope adding some flags will let us use function the
way they were designed, I'll definitely try working on this.

-- 
Rafał