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>

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 18 deletions

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 struct iwl_wimax_coex_event_entry cu_priorities[COEX_NUM_OF_EVENTS] = {
 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 @@ static int iwl_alive_notify(struct iwl_priv *priv)
  *   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 @@ static int iwl_verify_inst_sparse(struct iwl_priv *priv,
 		/* 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 @@ static int iwl_verify_inst_sparse(struct iwl_priv *priv,
 	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 @@ static void iwl_print_mismatch_inst(struct iwl_priv *priv,
 	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 @@ static int iwl_verify_ucode(struct iwl_priv *priv,
 		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 @@ int iwl_run_init_ucode(struct iwl_priv *priv)
 	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)