On 20 May 2015 at 14:09, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -139,11 +165,11 @@ brcmf_nvram_handle_value(struct nvram_parser *nvp)
> char *ekv;
> u32 cplen;
>
> - c = nvp->fwnv->data[nvp->pos];
> - if (!is_nvram_char(c)) {
> + c = nvp->data[nvp->pos];
> + if (!is_nvram_char(c) && (c != ' ')) {
Don't smuggle behavior changes in patches doing something else!
> @@ -406,19 +434,34 @@ 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;
> + 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)) {
if (fw && fw->data)
will work just fine, I'm surprised checkpatch doesn't complain.
