[PATCH] staging: tidspbridge: remove file handling functions for loader
greg at kroah.com
Wed Dec 8 23:49:40 UTC 2010
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:32:50PM -0600, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 05:02:20PM -0600, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:09:06AM -0600, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote:
> >> >> Instead use request_firmware and friends to get a valid firmware
> >> >> image.
> >> >>
> >> >> Right now the image is supplied dynamically through udev and the
> >> >> following rule:
> >> >>
> >> >> KERNEL=="omap-dsp", SUBSYSTEM=="firmware", ACTION=="add", \
> >> >> RUN+="/bin/sh -c 'echo 1 > /sys/$DEVPATH/loading; \
> >> >> cat $FIRMWARE > /sys/$DEVPATH/data; \
> >> >> echo 0 > /sys/$DEVPATH/loading'"
> >> >
> >> > Why do you need a custom firmware rule?
> >> It was meant as an example, when I compiled my minimal file system it
> >> didn't supply the firmware.sh script nor created /lib/firmware... I
> >> thought that not everybody would have the firmware.sh, so I just
> >> provided a sample rule.
> > So, can I remove this from the changelog comment, as it's not really
> > needed at all?
> Yes it can be removed.
> BTW, I don't expect this pushed through staging yet, I need to include
> it to my branch first and then I'll send a pull request with the pile
> of patches. Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the review.
Well, don't send me patches you don't want me to apply without a big "DO
NOT APPLY" in them, otherwise I might try to :)
> >> insmod bridgedriver.ko base_img=baseimage.dof
> > Ick, why use a module parameter name at all? Why is this "special" and
> > different from all other firmware users? They don't have to manually
> > specify a file name, the driver does that.
> The thing is that there are N number of firmwares, e.g.:
> There is the official and usable firmware to play with multimedia
> But there are also minimal firmwares to just ping or swap buffers with
> the dsp, when you just want to play around with basic features.
Then mess with the firmware symlink in userspace, don't have the driver
have to worry about it.
> > Please fix up the patch to not require a module parameter, distros hate
> > them, and users hate them even more.
> The driver is the one requiring the parameter (it was already this
> way), this patch doesn't introduce any parameter. I'll check what can
> be done and if nobody rejects I'll use the baseimage.dof as firmware
> by default.
That would be good. Again, you can put whatever firmware image you want
in that location if you wish to use different ones. That is for
userspace to do, not have the kernel worry about.
More information about the devel