On 19 August 2015 at 23:43, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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*.
Passing non-const pointer to function taking const one is OK. You
don't need casting, compiler won't complain about this.
On the other hand casing const pointer to the non-const one is hacky
and I believe you should avoid that.
--
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
