linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: mtk-vpu: load vpu firmware from the new location

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]

Message-ID: <396021fd-ec2e-1ec1-602e-08b9393c5ae9@xs4all.nl>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:20:48 +0100
From:   Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
To:     gtk_ruiwang@...iatek.com,
        Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...omium.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Erin Lo <erin.lo@...iatek.com>, Sj Huang <sj.huang@...iatek.com>,
        Houlong Wei <houlong.wei@...iatek.com>,
        Andrew-CT Chen <andrew-ct.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Maoguang Meng <maoguang.meng@...iatek.com>,
        srv_heupstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: mtk-vpu: load vpu firmware from the new location

On 3/22/20 8:57 AM, gtk_ruiwang@...iatek.com wrote:
> From: gtk_ruiwang <gtk_ruiwang@...iatek.com>
> 
> mt8173 VPU firmware has been moved to a sub-folder of
> linux-firmware, so load vpu-fw from the new location first,
> if it fails, then from the old one.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rui Wang <gtk_ruiwang@...iatek.com>

Hmm, I'm getting this from checkpatch.pl --strict:

WARNING: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'gtk_ruiwang <gtk_ruiwang@...iatek.com>'

Rather than sending this from 'gtk_ruiwang@...iatek.com', can you send this from
'Rui Wang <gtk_ruiwang@...iatek.com>'?

Then the two are the same.

Regards,

	Hans

> ---
>  drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c b/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c
> index a768707abb94..89274842e07b 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
>  /* binary firmware name */
>  #define VPU_P_FW		"vpu_p.bin"
>  #define VPU_D_FW		"vpu_d.bin"
> +#define VPU_P_FW_NEW		"mediatek/mt8173/vpu_p.bin"
> +#define VPU_D_FW_NEW		"mediatek/mt8173/vpu_d.bin"
>  
>  #define VPU_RESET		0x0
>  #define VPU_TCM_CFG		0x0008
> @@ -477,16 +479,24 @@ static int load_requested_vpu(struct mtk_vpu *vpu,
>  	size_t tcm_size = fw_type ? VPU_DTCM_SIZE : VPU_PTCM_SIZE;
>  	size_t fw_size = fw_type ? VPU_D_FW_SIZE : VPU_P_FW_SIZE;
>  	char *fw_name = fw_type ? VPU_D_FW : VPU_P_FW;
> +	char *fw_new_name = fw_type ? VPU_D_FW_NEW : VPU_P_FW_NEW;
>  	const struct firmware *vpu_fw;
>  	size_t dl_size = 0;
>  	size_t extra_fw_size = 0;
>  	void *dest;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	ret = request_firmware(&vpu_fw, fw_name, vpu->dev);
> +	ret = request_firmware(&vpu_fw, fw_new_name, vpu->dev);
>  	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(vpu->dev, "Failed to load %s, %d\n", fw_name, ret);
> -		return ret;
> +		dev_info(vpu->dev, "Failed to load %s, %d, retry\n",
> +			 fw_new_name, ret);
> +
> +		ret = request_firmware(&vpu_fw, fw_name, vpu->dev);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(vpu->dev, "Failed to load %s, %d\n", fw_name,
> +				ret);
> +			return ret;
> +		}
>  	}
>  	dl_size = vpu_fw->size;
>  	if (dl_size > fw_size) {
>