[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52ccf0c1-e5dd-412b-9e47-7829ca0f6ffc@molgen.mpg.de>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 12:05:42 +0200
From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To: Neeraj Sanjay Kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@....com>
Cc: marcel@...tmann.org, luiz.dentz@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amitkumar.karwar@....com, rohit.fule@....com,
sherry.sun@....com, ziniu.wang_1@....com, haibo.chen@....com,
LnxRevLi@....com, regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Bluetooth: btnxpuart: Update firmware names
[Cc: regressions@]
Dear Neeraj,
Am 29.05.24 um 11:53 schrieb Neeraj Sanjay Kale:
> This updates the firmware names of 3 chipsets: w8987, w8997, w9098.
> These changes are been done to standardize chip specific firmware
> file names.
Can you please describe the new naming schema in the commit message?
> To allow user to use older firmware file names, a new device tree
> property has been introduced called firmware-name, which will override
> the hardcoded firmware names in the driver.
So users updating the Linux kernel but not updating the devicetree with
the new property are going to see a regression, right? I think this
violates Linux’ no regression policy. If so, please implement a way to
support old and new names.
> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Sanjay Kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@....com>
> ---
> v2: Remove "nxp/" from all firmware name definitions to be inline with
> firware file name read from device tree file. (Krzysztof)
fir*m*ware
> ---
> drivers/bluetooth/btnxpuart.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btnxpuart.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btnxpuart.c
> index 0b93c2ff29e4..4442d911eba8 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btnxpuart.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btnxpuart.c
> @@ -33,16 +33,16 @@
> /* NXP HW err codes */
> #define BTNXPUART_IR_HW_ERR 0xb0
>
> -#define FIRMWARE_W8987 "nxp/uartuart8987_bt.bin"
> -#define FIRMWARE_W8997 "nxp/uartuart8997_bt_v4.bin"
> -#define FIRMWARE_W9098 "nxp/uartuart9098_bt_v1.bin"
> -#define FIRMWARE_IW416 "nxp/uartiw416_bt_v0.bin"
> -#define FIRMWARE_IW612 "nxp/uartspi_n61x_v1.bin.se"
> -#define FIRMWARE_IW624 "nxp/uartiw624_bt.bin"
> -#define FIRMWARE_SECURE_IW624 "nxp/uartiw624_bt.bin.se"
> -#define FIRMWARE_AW693 "nxp/uartaw693_bt.bin"
> -#define FIRMWARE_SECURE_AW693 "nxp/uartaw693_bt.bin.se"
> -#define FIRMWARE_HELPER "nxp/helper_uart_3000000.bin"
> +#define FIRMWARE_W8987 "uart8987_bt_v0.bin"
> +#define FIRMWARE_W8997 "uart8997_bt_v4.bin"
> +#define FIRMWARE_W9098 "uart9098_bt_v1.bin"
> +#define FIRMWARE_IW416 "uartiw416_bt_v0.bin"
> +#define FIRMWARE_IW612 "uartspi_n61x_v1.bin.se"
> +#define FIRMWARE_IW624 "uartiw624_bt.bin"
> +#define FIRMWARE_SECURE_IW624 "uartiw624_bt.bin.se"
> +#define FIRMWARE_AW693 "uartaw693_bt.bin"
> +#define FIRMWARE_SECURE_AW693 "uartaw693_bt.bin.se"
> +#define FIRMWARE_HELPER "helper_uart_3000000.bin"
>
> #define CHIP_ID_W9098 0x5c03
> #define CHIP_ID_IW416 0x7201
> @@ -685,13 +685,19 @@ static bool process_boot_signature(struct btnxpuart_dev *nxpdev)
> static int nxp_request_firmware(struct hci_dev *hdev, const char *fw_name)
> {
> struct btnxpuart_dev *nxpdev = hci_get_drvdata(hdev);
> + const char *fw_name_dt;
> int err = 0;
>
> if (!fw_name)
> return -ENOENT;
>
> if (!strlen(nxpdev->fw_name)) {
> - snprintf(nxpdev->fw_name, MAX_FW_FILE_NAME_LEN, "%s", fw_name);
> + if (strcmp(fw_name, FIRMWARE_HELPER) &&
> + !device_property_read_string(&nxpdev->serdev->dev,
> + "firmware-name",
> + &fw_name_dt))
> + fw_name = fw_name_dt;
> + snprintf(nxpdev->fw_name, MAX_FW_FILE_NAME_LEN, "nxp/%s", fw_name);
>
> bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "Request Firmware: %s", nxpdev->fw_name);
> err = request_firmware(&nxpdev->fw, nxpdev->fw_name, &hdev->dev);
Kind regards,
Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists