diff mbox series

wifi: brcmfmac: Fix error return code in brcmf_sdio_download_firmware()

Message ID 1669716458-15327-1-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com
State New
Headers show
Series wifi: brcmfmac: Fix error return code in brcmf_sdio_download_firmware() | expand

Commit Message

wangyufen Nov. 29, 2022, 10:07 a.m. UTC
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@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Arend van Spriel Nov. 30, 2022, 11:19 a.m. UTC | #1
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@huawei.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@huawei.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.

Thanks,
Arend
wangyufen Dec. 1, 2022, 3:01 a.m. UTC | #2
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@huawei.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@huawei.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
Arend van Spriel Dec. 1, 2022, 6:18 a.m. UTC | #3
On December 1, 2022 4:01:39 AM wangyufen <wangyufen@huawei.com> wrote:

> 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@huawei.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@huawei.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? 😄

Obviously it is no better than -EINVAL when you look at the behavior. It is 
just a feeble attempt to be a little bit more consistent. Feel free to 
change the return value for brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state() as well.

Regards,
Arend
>>
Kalle Valo Dec. 1, 2022, 11:16 a.m. UTC | #4
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:

> On December 1, 2022 4:01:39 AM wangyufen <wangyufen@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> 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@huawei.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@huawei.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? 😄
>
> Obviously it is no better than -EINVAL when you look at the behavior.
> It is just a feeble attempt to be a little bit more consistent. Feel
> free to change the return value for brcmf_pcie_exit_download_state()
> as well.

Weirdly Arend's last comment is not visible in patchwork:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/1669716458-15327-1-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com/

His last email is visible, but the last paragraph is not shown. Some
strange hiccup somewhere I guess, just wanted to mention it in case we
see more of them.
diff mbox series

Patch

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;
 		goto err;
 	}