[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2B38A5C9-8940-464D-B473-CF62E8BD84C4@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:30:21 +0800
From: yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...el.com>,
"Jie, Yang" <yang.jie@...el.com>, joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Luis Rodriguez <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problems loading firmware using built-in drivers with kernels that use initramfs.
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 04:26, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Either build firmware in the kernel or ramdisk (so it is always
>> available), or make sure request_firmware() calls are not in driver's
>> probe() paths.
>
> The correct answer is almost always that second one.
>
> Drivers that load firmware in their probe parts are generally doign
> things wrong.
>
> It's very occasionally the right thing to do - there are a few pieces
> of hardware where just about _everything_ about the device is in the
> firmware, and you simply can't even problem them before that, because
> you don't know what they *are* before the firmware has been loaded.
> The extreme case of that might be something like the base hardware
> being an FPGA that has a USB interface, but before the FPGA has been
> loaded, it basically has no identity. So there are probably valid
> cases in theory for loading firmware at probe time, but pretty much
> every single case I've ever actually seen, the probe knows what the
> actual hardware is from some identifiable piece, and the actual
> firmware loading should be delayed until the piece of hardware is
> actually opened.
>
> So the "load firmware in probe routine" happens, and we shouldn't
> disallow it, but it should be considered a "last resort" kind of
> thing.
>
> In general, things like sound drivers should *not* need to have their
> firmware in the initrd, even if you build them into the kernel. A disk
> driver? Yes. Maybe the root filesystem is on that disk, and you need
> the firmware for the disk driver to load it. But a sound device?
> Please just make sure that you load the firmware as late as possible.
>
i remember lots of drivers load their firmware when some user space process
open the device node, that is to say, they load the firmware in
->open() function, at this time , you can make sure the real filesystem is ready in
most time.
i think your dsp firmware can also do like this.
you can refer to msm gnu driver:
static void load_gpu(struct drm_device *dev)
{
static DEFINE_MUTEX(init_lock);
struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
mutex_lock(&init_lock);
if (!priv->gpu)
priv->gpu = adreno_load_gpu(dev);
mutex_unlock(&init_lock);
}
static int msm_open(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file)
{
struct msm_file_private *ctx;
/* For now, load gpu on open.. to avoid the requirement of having
* firmware in the initrd.
*/
load_gpu(dev);
ctx = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!ctx)
return -ENOMEM;
file->driver_priv = ctx;
return 0;
}
it load the firmware in open() function.
Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists