On 08/19/2015 11:21 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
subject changed to v2. So let's go over your beef.
On 07/11/2015 07:09 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 20:31, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
@@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ brcmf_nvram_handle_value(struct nvram_parser *nvp)
u32 cplen;
c = nvp->data[nvp->pos];
- if (!is_nvram_char(c)) {
+ if (!is_nvram_char(c) && (c != ' ')) {
This is redundant, please drop this change.
See fc23e81eb8f4 ("brcmfmac: allow NVRAM values to contain spaces")
done
@@ -426,19 +428,34 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const
struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
struct brcmf_fw *fwctx = ctx;
u32 nvram_length = 0;
void *nvram = NULL;
+ u8 *data = NULL;
This can be const.
done
Actually this is not done, but either way will require a cast because
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents expects char* so there is nothing gained.
Unless someone will change bcm47xx_nvram_get/release_contents api to
const char*.
Regards,
Arend
+ size_t data_len;
+ bool raw_nvram;
brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "enter: dev=%s\n", dev_name(fwctx->dev));
- if (!fw && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
- goto fail;
+ if ((fw) && (fw->data)) {
I think I was already pointing similar coding issue to you. There is
no need for these extra braces. And if they are not needed, don't use
them. There is no point in using if (((foo))) schema just because it
works. You could be confused by macros where we sometimes need tricks
like this, but this is a standard part of code.
No confusion, just paranoid. You clearly have never been on road of
chasing compiler issues with logical condition, but indeed it can be
removed although checkpatch does not seem to be bothered with it. Will
change it.
+ data = (u8 *)fw->data;
Don't cast to workaround const != const. You won't need casting after
making local "data" a const variable.
done
+ data_len = fw->size;
+ raw_nvram = false;
+ } else {
+ data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len);
+ if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
+ goto fail;
+ raw_nvram = true;
+ }
- if (fw) {
- nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(fw->data, fw->size,
&nvram_length,
+ if (data) {
+ nvram = brcmf_fw_nvram_strip(data, data_len,
&nvram_length,
fwctx->domain_nr,
fwctx->bus_nr);
- release_firmware(fw);
- if (!nvram && !(fwctx->flags &
BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL))
- goto fail;
+ if (raw_nvram)
+ bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
This is cosmetical but maybe you could move above 2 lines next to the
release_firmware? So we have all freeing code at one please? Do you
think it would improve readability?
Nothing important thought. Feel free to ignore me here.
confused! The release_firmware call is removed here, right?
@@ -473,15 +490,9 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_code_done(const
struct firmware *fw, void *ctx)
if (!ret)
return;
- /* when nvram is optional call .done() callback here */
- if (fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL) {
- fwctx->done(fwctx->dev, fw, NULL, 0);
- kfree(fwctx);
- return;
- }
+ brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(NULL, fwctx);
+ return;
It gave me a 5 minutes headache ;) Could you add a short comment why
you call _done anyway? Something like
/* Even if we failed to init user space fw request we may get a
platform one */
For the resulting code I don't see value adding such comment. Reading
this patch you might want Hante to explain this change, but you figured
it out. Sorry for the headache ;-)
Regards,
Arend
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
