Message-Id: <201412082015.18501@pali>
Date:	Mon, 8 Dec 2014 20:15:18 +0100
From:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@...il.com>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@...rom.com>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...g0.de>,
	David Gnedt <david.gnedt@...izone.at>
Subject: Re: wl1251: NVS firmware data

On Monday 08 December 2014 19:50:17 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Pali,
> 
> >>>>>> On Saturday 06 December 2014 13:49:54 Pavel Machek
> >>>>>> wrote: /**
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> + * request_firmware_prefer_user: - prefer usermode
> >>>>>> helper for loading firmware + * @firmware_p: pointer to
> >>>>>> firmware image
> >>>>>> + * @name: name of firmware file
> >>>>>> + * @device: device for which firmware is being loaded
> >>>>>> + *
> >>>>>> + * This function works pretty much like
> >>>>>> request_firmware(), but it prefer + * usermode helper.
> >>>>>> If usermode helper fails then it fallback to direct
> >>>>>> access. + * Usefull for dynamic or model specific
> >>>>>> firmware data. + **/
> >>>>>> +int request_firmware_prefer_user(const struct firmware
> >>>>>> **firmware_p, +                           const char
> >>>>>> *name, struct device *device) +{
> >>>>>> +       int ret;
> >>>>>> +       __module_get(THIS_MODULE);
> >>>>>> +       ret = _request_firmware(firmware_p, name,
> >>>>>> device, +                               FW_OPT_UEVENT
> >>>>>> | FW_OPT_PREFER_USER); +      
> >>>>>> module_put(THIS_MODULE); +       return ret;
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(request_firmware_prefer_user);
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I'd like to introduce request_firmware_user() which only
> >>>>> requests firmware from user space, and this way is
> >>>>> simpler and more flexible since we have
> >>>>> request_firmware_direct() already.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Why would a driver care about what program provides the
> >>>> firmware?  It shouldn't at all, and we want to get rid of
> >>>> the userspace firmware loader, not encourage drivers to
> >>>> use it "exclusively" at all.
> >>> 
> >>> Do not remove it! Without userspace firmware loader it is
> >>> impossible to load dynamic firmware files.
> >> 
> >> why is this dynamic in the first place. It does not sound
> >> like dynamic data to me at all. This is like the WiFi MAC
> >> address(es) or Bluetooth BD_ADDR. They are all static
> >> information. The only difference is that they are on the
> >> host accessibly filesystem or storage and not on the
> >> device itself.
> >> 
> >> To be honest, for Bluetooth we solved this now. If the
> >> device is missing key information like the calibration
> >> data or BD_ADDR, then it comes up unconfigured. A
> >> userspace process can then go and load the right data into
> >> it and then the device becomes available as Bluetooth
> >> device.
> >> 
> >> Trying to use request_firmware to load some random data and
> >> insist on going through userspace helper for that sounds
> >> crazy to me. Especially since we are trying hard to get
> >> away from the userspace loader. Forcing to keep it for new
> >> stuff sounds backwards to me.
> >> 
> >> With the special Nokia partition in mind, why hasn't this
> >> been turned into a mountable filesystem or into a
> >> driver/subsystem that can access the data direct from the
> >> kernel. I advocated for this some time ago. Maybe there
> >> should be a special subsystem for access to these factory
> >> persistent information that drivers then just can access.
> >> I seem to remember that some systems provide these via
> >> ACPI. Why does the ARM platform has to be special here?
> >> 
> >> And the problem of getting Ethernet and WiFi MAC address
> >> and Bluetooth BD_ADDR comes up many many times. Why not
> >> have something generic here. And don't tell me
> >> request_firmware is that generic solution ;)
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> 
> >> Marcel
> > 
> > Hi Marcel. I think you did not understand this problem. This
> > discussion is not about mac address. Please read email
> > thread again and if there are some unclear pars, then ask.
> > Thanks!
> 
> I think that I pretty clearly understand the problem.
> Calibration data, MAC address, what is the difference? For me
> this is all the same. It is data that is specific to a device
> or type of devices and it is stored somewhere else. In most
> cases in some immutable memory/flash area.
> 

Those calibration data (in form of binary NVS firmware file) 
needs to be sent to wl1251 chip. Mac address is not needed at 
this step (and kernel generate some random if is not provided).

(Just to note wl1271 driver loads both MAC address and NVS data 
via one firmware file which is prepared by userspace, but this 
discussion is about wl1251...)

> What you want is access to this data since the kernel driver
> needs it. Do I get this so far ;)
> 

Yes, we need to provide NVS data to kernel when kernel ask for 
them.

> So my take is that request_firmware is not the right way to
> get this data. Or more precisely make sure that this data is
> available to kernel drivers. And what I am seeing here is
> that instead of actually solving the bigger problem, we just
> hack around it with request_firmware. Now surprisingly the
> request_firmware loads files directly from the kernel and all
> the hacks do not work anymore.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marcel

Just read emails again...

Our problem is:

linux-firmware.git tree provides two binary firmware files:

ti-connectivity/wl1251-fw.bin
ti-connectivity/wl1251-nvs.bin

First is firmware file, second NVS file with generic calibration 
data. Kernel driver wl1251 now loads both firmware files via 
request_firmware. Generic calibration data are enough for wl1251 
chip (it should work). But devices have own calibration data 
stored somewhere else.

On Nokia N900 NVS data are generated on-the-fly from some bytes 
from CAL (/dev/mtd1), from state of cellular network and from 
some other regulation settings.

So I think that files stored in linux-firmware.git tree (which 
are also installed into /lib/firmware/) should be loaded with 
request_firmware function. Or not? Do you think something else? 
What other developers think?

I'm against kernel driver for CAL (/dev/mtd1) for more reasons:

1) we have userspace open source code, but licensed under GPLv3. 
And until kernel change license, we cannot include it.

2) NVS data are (probably) not in one place, plus they depends on 
something other.

3) If manufacture XYZ create new device with its own storage 
format of calibration data this means that correct solution for 
XYZ is also to implement new kernel fs driver for its own format. 
Do you really want to have in kernel all those drivers for all 
different (proprietary) storage formats?

4) It does not help us with existence of generic file 
/lib/firmware/ti-connectivity/wl1251-nvs.bin which comes from 
linux-firmware.git tree.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists