linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] firmware: cs_dsp: Merge wmfw format log message into INFO message

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <afc1a70b-4ed2-4afe-a506-1ca04d080342@opensource.cirrus.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:09:38 +0100
From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
CC: <broonie@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        <linux-sound@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] firmware: cs_dsp: Merge wmfw format log message into
 INFO message

On 09/07/2024 16:33, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:51:55PM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>> Log the WMFW file format version with the INFO_TEST message.
>>
>> The behaviour of firmware controls depends on the WMFW format version,
>> so this is useful information to log for debugging. But there's no
>> need to use a separate log line just for this value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c | 3 +--
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c b/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c
>> index 1bc2e0b6d40b..141a6c9d6737 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c
>> @@ -1502,7 +1502,6 @@ static int cs_dsp_load(struct cs_dsp *dsp, const struct firmware *firmware,
>>   		goto out_fw;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	cs_dsp_info(dsp, "Firmware version: %d\n", header->ver);
>>   	dsp->fw_ver = header->ver;
>>   
>>   	if (header->core != dsp->type) {
>> @@ -1552,7 +1551,7 @@ static int cs_dsp_load(struct cs_dsp *dsp, const struct firmware *firmware,
>>   		case WMFW_INFO_TEXT:
>>   		case WMFW_NAME_TEXT:
>>   			region_name = "Info/Name";
>> -			cs_dsp_info(dsp, "%s: %.*s\n", file,
>> +			cs_dsp_info(dsp, "%s (rev %d): %.*s\n", file, dsp->fw_ver,
>>   				    min(le32_to_cpu(region->len), 100), region->data);
> 
> Are we sure on this one? I don't think a WMFW is required to
> include an INFO/NAME block so it is now possible for this to not
> get printed. Granted I have not seen one that doesn't include
> at least one of these blocks but it isn't required. I think I
> would lean towards keening the separate print personally.
> 
> Thanks,
> Charles

The specification says that the first INFO block is mandatory, but
specifications can change so I don't mind leaving it on its own line.

I've just noticed a typo in the commit description (INFO_TEST should be
INFO_TEXT) so I want to send a V2 chain anyway.