Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:13:45 +0900 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with vmalloc() |
| |
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > 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, :-)
Hrm, that didn't seem to be happening for me - the firmware load completed successfully. Have to check how that happened.
> > 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?
A driver has no way to tell if the firmware is there or not without asking for it.
| |