Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:05:30 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with vmalloc() | From | Ming Lei <> |
| |
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Mark Brown > It seems better to punt that decision to callers - for example, the case
In fact, -ENOENT is returned to caller for non-direct loading situation, see_request_firmware_load().
I understand drivers(caller) may be cheated if a zero-length firmware image is obtained. In normal situation, one firmware image should include something, instead of nothing, :-)
> I ran into this with was a driver that was using a zero length firmware > to say that it didn't want to load an optional image but also didn't > want to have to time out if that was the case. That doesn't seem
If so, I am wondering why the driver has to call request_firmware()? Looks just bypassing request_firmware() is fine for the driver, doesn't it?
Thanks, -- Ming Lei
| |