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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:26:31 +0100
From:   Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     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 12-12-2016 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]

Regards,
Arend

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2016-July/thread.html#8026