iwlwifi: change struct iwl_fw
Change iwl_fw struct to hold an array of fw_img instead of
three separated instances.
Change fw_img to hold an array of fw_desc instead of two
separate descriptors for instructions and data.
Change load_given_ucode, load_section, verification functions
etc. to support this structure.
Signed-off-by: David Spinadel <david.spinadel@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-ucode.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-ucode.c
index 0908880..2528287 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-ucode.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-ucode.c
@@ -80,17 +80,10 @@
static inline const struct fw_img *
iwl_get_ucode_image(struct iwl_priv *priv, enum iwl_ucode_type ucode_type)
{
- switch (ucode_type) {
- case IWL_UCODE_INIT:
- return &priv->fw->ucode_init;
- case IWL_UCODE_WOWLAN:
- return &priv->fw->ucode_wowlan;
- case IWL_UCODE_REGULAR:
- return &priv->fw->ucode_rt;
- default:
- break;
- }
- return NULL;
+ if (ucode_type >= IWL_UCODE_TYPE_MAX)
+ return NULL;
+
+ return &priv->fw->img[ucode_type];
}
/*
@@ -342,7 +335,7 @@
* using sample data 100 bytes apart. If these sample points are good,
* it's a pretty good bet that everything between them is good, too.
*/
-static int iwl_verify_inst_sparse(struct iwl_priv *priv,
+static int iwl_verify_sec_sparse(struct iwl_priv *priv,
const struct fw_desc *fw_desc)
{
__le32 *image = (__le32 *)fw_desc->v_addr;
@@ -357,7 +350,7 @@
/* NOTE: Use the debugless read so we don't flood kernel log
* if IWL_DL_IO is set */
iwl_write_direct32(trans(priv), HBUS_TARG_MEM_RADDR,
- i + IWLAGN_RTC_INST_LOWER_BOUND);
+ i + fw_desc->offset);
val = iwl_read32(trans(priv), HBUS_TARG_MEM_RDAT);
if (val != le32_to_cpu(*image))
return -EIO;
@@ -366,7 +359,7 @@
return 0;
}
-static void iwl_print_mismatch_inst(struct iwl_priv *priv,
+static void iwl_print_mismatch_sec(struct iwl_priv *priv,
const struct fw_desc *fw_desc)
{
__le32 *image = (__le32 *)fw_desc->v_addr;
@@ -378,7 +371,7 @@
IWL_DEBUG_FW(priv, "ucode inst image size is %u\n", len);
iwl_write_direct32(trans(priv), HBUS_TARG_MEM_RADDR,
- IWLAGN_RTC_INST_LOWER_BOUND);
+ fw_desc->offset);
for (offs = 0;
offs < len && errors < 20;
@@ -408,14 +401,14 @@
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (!iwl_verify_inst_sparse(priv, &img->code)) {
+ if (!iwl_verify_sec_sparse(priv, &img->sec[IWL_UCODE_SECTION_INST])) {
IWL_DEBUG_FW(priv, "uCode is good in inst SRAM\n");
return 0;
}
IWL_ERR(priv, "UCODE IMAGE IN INSTRUCTION SRAM NOT VALID!!\n");
- iwl_print_mismatch_inst(priv, &img->code);
+ iwl_print_mismatch_sec(priv, &img->sec[IWL_UCODE_SECTION_INST]);
return -EIO;
}
@@ -534,7 +527,7 @@
lockdep_assert_held(&priv->mutex);
/* No init ucode required? Curious, but maybe ok */
- if (!priv->fw->ucode_init.code.len)
+ if (!priv->fw->img[IWL_UCODE_INIT].sec[0].len)
return 0;
if (priv->init_ucode_run)