On 22 May 2015 at 10:31, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/20/15 17:02, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> 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!
>
>
> The subject is "Add support for host platform NVRAM loading" and guess what.
> That type of NVRAM turned out to have spaces in the entries so in my opinion
> it is related to this patch. I can split it up if you feel strongly about
> this.
I'd expect such patch to just implement *loading* from different
source and nothing else. If there are additional changes needed, I
think they should go in separated patch if possible.
I noticed the same problem with parsing NVRAM values and sent
[PATCH] brcmfmac: allow NVRAM values to contain space and '#' chars
, so you should be able to drop this patch of your patch anyway.
You may give me an Ack if you have a moment :)
>>> @@ -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.
>
> I ran checkpatch.pl --strict and did not get complaint about this change.
I know, it's weird. Maybe I'll report this an improvement idea to
checkpatch maintainer.
--
Rafał
