On Kha, 2017-12-07 at 10:00 +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 08:10:06 +0000 Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
On Kha, 2017-12-07 at 08:49 +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:29:24 +0000 Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
On Rab, 2017-12-06 at 12:00 +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:06:21 +0000 Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
On Sel, 2017-12-05 at 09:53 +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > > > > Hi, > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:57:57 +0800 tien.fong.chee@intel.c > om > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Tien Fong Chee tien.fong.chee@intel.com > > > > This is file system generic loader which can be used to > > load > > the file image from the storage into target such as > > memory. > > The consumer driver would then use this loader to > > program > > whatever, > > ie. the FPGA device. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee@intel.com > > > > > --- > > common/Makefile | 1 + > > common/fs_loader.c | 304 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/fs_loader.h | 30 ++++++ > > 3 files changed, 335 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 common/fs_loader.c > > create mode 100644 include/fs_loader.h > > > > diff --git a/common/Makefile b/common/Makefile > > index 801ea31..419e915 100644 > > --- a/common/Makefile > > +++ b/common/Makefile > > @@ -130,3 +130,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_DFU) += dfu.o > > obj-y += command.o > > obj-y += s_record.o > > obj-y += xyzModem.o > > +obj-y += fs_loader.o > > diff --git a/common/fs_loader.c b/common/fs_loader.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..04f682b > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/common/fs_loader.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,304 @@ > > +/* > > + * Copyright (C) 2017 Intel Corporation <www.intel.com > > > > > + * > > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > + */ > > + > > +#include <common.h> > > +#include <errno.h> > > +#include <fs.h> > > +#include <fs_loader.h> > > +#include <nand.h> > > +#include <sata.h> > > +#include <spi.h> > > +#include <spi_flash.h> > > +#include <spl.h> > > +#include <linux/string.h> > > +#include <usb.h> > > + > > +static struct device_location default_locations[] = { > > + { > > + .name = "mmc", > > + .devpart = "0:1", > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "usb", > > + .devpart = "0:1", > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "sata", > > + .devpart = "0:1", > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +/* USB build is not supported yet in SPL */ > > +#ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > > +#ifdef CONFIG_USB_STORAGE > > +static int init_usb(void) > > +{ > > + int err = 0; > > > Useless initialization. > noted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > + err = usb_init(); > > + > > + if (err) > > > Unnecessary blank line. > Sorry, i'm not catching you because there is no blank line between "if" and "return"
I meant the blank line between 'err = ...' and 'if (err)'
Okay, i can change that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!strcmp(default_locations[i].name, > > name)) > > + default_locations[i].devpart = > > devpart; > > + } > > + > > + return; > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Prepare firmware struct; > > + * return -ve if fail. > > + */ > > +static int _request_firmware_prepare(struct firmware > > **firmware_p, > > + const char *name, > > void > > *dbuf, > > + size_t size, u32 > > offset) > > +{ > > + struct firmware *firmware = NULL; > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + if (!name || name[0] == '\0') > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > + > Is it really useful to continue here initializing the > 'firmware' > struct and returning an error at the end? > I try to keep it very close to Linux firmware loader. When more API ported in from Linux in future, this can be helper function. Anyway, i have no strong opinion, i can move to caller if you guys think that is better.
The Linux firmware loader has this:
if (!name || name[0] == '\0') { ret = -EINVAL; goto out; }
Note the 'goto out' which is missing in your code. If following the Linux code closely, you would have to set *firmware_p to NULL and exit in this case.
I can set the *firmware_p to NUll in failing case. But, i checked the static int _request_firmware_prepare in Linux, there is no goto out error handling method in the function. Fyi, there is no allocated memory release in U-Boot. https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.13.15/source/drivers /bas e/fi rmware_class.c#L1191
I was referring to _request_firmware() which calls request_firmware_prepare() and does the checking of 'name' as your code does.
Ohh.....i skipped _request_firmware() because there is no error handling required in U-Boot such as memory release. For the checking at both firmware_p and name, i would rather to merge them into request_firware_prepare() because they are related to each other instead of creating one function just for checking purpose. What do you think?
I don't mind whether you combine those functions or not as long as you reproduce the same functionality which your patch currently does not do.
Okay. SO i will add the checking on firmware_p whether is NULL, and assign NULL to *firmware_P if calloc is failed. There is no goout since there is no error handling required.
Lothar Waßmann