On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:51:55PM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
Log the WMFW file format version with the INFO_TEST message.
The behaviour of firmware controls depends on the WMFW format version, so this is useful information to log for debugging. But there's no need to use a separate log line just for this value.
Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald rf@opensource.cirrus.com
drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c b/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c index 1bc2e0b6d40b..141a6c9d6737 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/cirrus/cs_dsp.c @@ -1502,7 +1502,6 @@ static int cs_dsp_load(struct cs_dsp *dsp, const struct firmware *firmware, goto out_fw; }
cs_dsp_info(dsp, "Firmware version: %d\n", header->ver); dsp->fw_ver = header->ver;
if (header->core != dsp->type) {
@@ -1552,7 +1551,7 @@ static int cs_dsp_load(struct cs_dsp *dsp, const struct firmware *firmware, case WMFW_INFO_TEXT: case WMFW_NAME_TEXT: region_name = "Info/Name";
cs_dsp_info(dsp, "%s: %.*s\n", file,
cs_dsp_info(dsp, "%s (rev %d): %.*s\n", file, dsp->fw_ver, min(le32_to_cpu(region->len), 100), region->data);
Are we sure on this one? I don't think a WMFW is required to include an INFO/NAME block so it is now possible for this to not get printed. Granted I have not seen one that doesn't include at least one of these blocks but it isn't required. I think I would lean towards keening the separate print personally.
Thanks, Charles