libertas: prioritize usb8388_v5.bin firmware on OLPC machines

Normally, the v9 firmware will be loaded if it's available. However, on OLPC XO-1 machines, the v5 firmware supports extra functionality. This makes the libertas driver attempt to load the v5 firmware first if the machine is an OLPC machine; if that fails (or it's not an OLPC machine), fall back to attempting to load the other firmwares.

Signed-off-by Andres Salomon <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_usb.c |   24

++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

(quoted diff) +0 -0

b/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_usb.c index b5acc39..6a2e70e 100644

drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_usb.c +20 -0

@@ -973,6 +973,26 @@ static const struct {
 	{ MODEL_8682, "libertas/usb8682.bin" }
 };
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_OLPC
+
+/* default OLPC firmware to try; index into fw_table above */
+#define OLPC_FW 1
+
+static int try_olpc_fw(struct if_usb_card *cardp)
+{
+	int retval = -ENOENT;
+
+	/* try the OLPC firmware first; fall back to any others */
+	if (machine_is_olpc())
+		retval = request_firmware(&cardp->fw,
+				fw_table[OLPC_FW].fwname,
 &cardp->udev->dev);
+	return retval;
+}
+
+#else
+static int try_olpc_fw(struct if_usb_card *cardp) { return -ENOENT; }
+#endif /* !CONFIG_OLPC */
+
 static int get_fw(struct if_usb_card *cardp, const char *fwname)
 {

drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_usb.c +4 -0

 	int i;

@@ -981,6 +1001,10 @@ static int get_fw(struct if_usb_card *cardp,
 const char *fwname) if (fwname)
 		return request_firmware(&cardp->fw, fwname,
 &cardp->udev->dev); 
+	/* Handle OLPC firmware */
+	if (try_olpc_fw(cardp) == 0)
+		return 0;
+
 	/* Otherwise search for firmware to use */
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_table); i++) {
 		if (fw_table[i].model != cardp->model)

Note: I've not tested this out yet on an XO-1.  I'll do that after some feedback regarding the matching linux-firmware pull request.  This should address dsd's concern about changing the loading order of the firmware.

Quoted 4 lines · Andres Salomon

Note: I've not tested this out yet on an XO-1. I'll do that after some feedback regarding the matching linux-firmware pull request. This should address dsd's concern about changing the loading order of the firmware.

That indeed was a concern, but only until Dan Williams and Chris pointed out that OLPC is the only usb8388 user. With that in mind, I am in agreement with them that simply putting usb8388_olpc_v5.bin (or whatever name is chosen) at the top of the firmware loading list is the best option.

Quoted 6 lines · Daniel Drake

Quoted 4 lines · Andres Salomon

Note: I've not tested this out yet on an XO-1. I'll do that after some feedback regarding the matching linux-firmware pull request. This should address dsd's concern about changing the loading order of the firmware.

Quoted 5 lines

That indeed was a concern, but only until Dan Williams and Chris pointed out that OLPC is the only usb8388 user. With that in mind, I am in agreement with them that simply putting usb8388_olpc_v5.bin (or whatever name is chosen) at the top of the firmware loading list is the best option.

Yeah, patches for that would be immediately acked.

Quoted 13 lines · On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:17:23 -0500 Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted 11 lines · Daniel Drake

Quoted 4 lines · Andres Salomon

Note: I've not tested this out yet on an XO-1. I'll do that after some feedback regarding the matching linux-firmware pull request. This should address dsd's concern about changing the loading order of the firmware.

That indeed was a concern, but only until Dan Williams and Chris pointed out that OLPC is the only usb8388 user. With that in mind, I am in agreement with them that simply putting usb8388_olpc_v5.bin (or whatever name is chosen) at the top of the firmware loading list is the best option.

Quoted 2 lines

Yeah, patches for that would be immediately acked.

What's your opinion on overwriting usb8388_v5.bin with OLPC's version, versus having both a usb8388_v5.bin and a usb8388_olpc_v5.bin?

Quoted 20 lines · Andres Salomon

Quoted 16 lines · On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:17:23 -0500 Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Drake

Quoted 4 lines · Andres Salomon

Note: I've not tested this out yet on an XO-1. I'll do that after some feedback regarding the matching linux-firmware pull request. This should address dsd's concern about changing the loading order of the firmware.

Quoted 5 lines

That indeed was a concern, but only until Dan Williams and Chris pointed out that OLPC is the only usb8388 user. With that in mind, I am in agreement with them that simply putting usb8388_olpc_v5.bin (or whatever name is chosen) at the top of the firmware loading list is the best option.

Yeah, patches for that would be immediately acked.

Quoted 3 lines

What's your opinion on overwriting usb8388_v5.bin with OLPC's version, versus having both a usb8388_v5.bin and a usb8388_olpc_v5.bin?

I'd slightly prefer to keep them separate, but I don't really care that much. Whatever you'd like to do here is fine.