[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14e5c329-03c4-e82e-8ae2-97d30d53e4fd@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:01:14 +0800
From: wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>
CC: <aspriel@...il.com>, <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
<kvalo@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
<brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
<SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@...ineon.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<arend@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: brcmfmac: Fix error return code in
brcmf_sdio_download_firmware()
在 2022/11/30 19:19, Arend van Spriel 写道:
> On 11/30/2022 3:00 AM, wangyufen wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2022/11/30 1:41, Franky Lin 写道:
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:47 AM Wang Yufen <wangyufen@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Fix to return a negative error code -EINVAL instead of 0.
>>>>
>>>> Compile tested only.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: d380ebc9b6fb ("brcmfmac: rename chip download functions")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 1 +
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>> index 465d95d..329ec8ac 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
>>>> @@ -3414,6 +3414,7 @@ static int brcmf_sdio_download_firmware(struct
>>>> brcmf_sdio *bus,
>>>> /* Take arm out of reset */
>>>> if (!brcmf_chip_set_active(bus->ci, rstvec)) {
>>>> brcmf_err("error getting out of ARM core reset\n");
>>>> + bcmerror = -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> ENODEV seems more appropriate here.
>>
>> However, if brcmf_chip_set_active() fails in
>> brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state(), "-EINVAL" is returned.
>> Is it necessary to keep consistent?
>
> If we can not get the ARM on the chip out of reset things will fail soon
> enough further down the road. Anyway, the other function calls return
> -EIO so let's do the same here.
>
So -EIO is better? Anyone else have any other opinions? 😄
Thanks,
Wang
> Thanks,
> Arend
Powered by blists - more mailing lists