Message-Id: <201612181309.01298@pali>
Date:   Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:09:01 +0100
From:   Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:     Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@...to.com>,
        Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
        Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        "linux-wireless" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: wl1251 & mac address & calibration data

On Sunday 18 December 2016 12:54:00 Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On 18-12-2016 12:04, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 December 2016 11:49:53 Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 16-12-2016 11:40, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >>> On Friday 16 December 2016 08:25:44 Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >>>> On 12/16/2016 03:03 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>>> For the new API a solution for "fallback mechanisms" should be
> >>>>> clean though and I am looking to stay as far as possible from
> >>>>> the existing mess. A solution to help both the old API and new
> >>>>> API is possible for the "fallback mechanism" though -- but for
> >>>>> that I can only refer you at this point to some of Daniel
> >>>>> Wagner and Tom Gunderson's firmwared deamon prospect. It
> >>>>> should help pave the way for a clean solution and help address
> >>>>> other stupid issues.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The firmwared project is hosted here
> >>>> 
> >>>> https://github.com/teg/firmwared
> >>>> 
> >>>> As Luis pointed out, firmwared relies on
> >>>> FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK, which is not enabled by default.
> >>> 
> >>> I know. But it does not mean that I cannot enable this option at
> >>> kernel compile time.
> >>> 
> >>> Bigger problem is that currently request_firmware() first try to
> >>> load firmware directly from VFS and after that (if fails)
> >>> fallback to user helper.
> >>> 
> >>> So I would need to extend kernel firmware code with new function
> >>> (or flag) to not use VFS and try only user mode helper.
> >> 
> >> Why do you need the user-mode helper anyway. This is all static
> >> data, right?
> > 
> > Those are static data, but device specific!
> 
> So what?
> 
> >> So why not cook up a firmware file in user-space once and put
> >> it in /lib/firmware for the driver to request directly.
> > 
> > 1. Violates FHS
> 
> How?
> 
> > 2. Does not work for readonly /, readonly /lib, readonly
> > /lib/firmware
> 
> Que?
> 
> > 3. Backup & restore of rootfs between same devices does not work
> > (as rootfs now contains device specific data).
> 
> True.
> 
> > 4. Sharing one rootfs (either via nfs or other technology) does not
> > work for more devices (even in state when rootfs is used only by
> > one device at one time).
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > And it is common that N900 developers have rootfs in laptop and via
> > usb (cdc_ether) exports it over nfs to N900 device and boot
> > system. It basically break booting from one nfs-exported rootfs,
> > as that export become model specific...
> 
> These are all you choices and more a logistic issue. If your take is
> that udev is the way to solve those, fine by me.
> 
> >> Seems a bit
> >> overkill to have a {e,}udev or whatever daemon running if the
> >> result is always the same. Just my 2 cents.
> > 
> > No it is not. It will break couple of other things in Linux and
> > device
> 
> Now I am curious. What "couple of other things" will be broken.
> 
> > and model specific calibration data should not be in /lib/firmware!
> > That directory is used for firmware files, not calibration.
> 
> What is "firmware"? Really. These are binary blobs required to make
> the device work. And guess what, your device needs calibration data.
> Why make the distinction.
> 
> Regards,
> Arend

File wl1251-nvs.bin is provided by linux-firmware package and contains 
default data which should be overriden by model specific calibrated 
data.

But overwriting that one file is not possible as it next update of 
linux-firmware package will overwrite it back. It break any normal usage 
of package management.

Also it is ridiculously broken by design if some "boot" files needs to 
be overwritten to initialize hardware properly. To not break booting you 
need to overwrite that file before first boot. But without booting 
device you cannot read calibration data. So some hack with autoreboot 
after boot is needed. And how to detect that we have real overwritten 
calibration data and not default one from linux-firmware? Any heuristic 
or checks will be broken here. And no, nothing like you need to reboot 
your device now (and similar concept) from windows world is not 
accepted.

"firmware" is one for chip. Any N900 device with wl1251 chip needs 
exactly same firmware "wl1251-fw.bin". But every N900 needs different 
calibration data which is not firmware.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists