On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:27:31AM +0000, Zhang, Ning A wrote: > 在 2018-08-06一的 16:05 +0200，gre...@linuxfoundation.org写道： > > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:48:44AM +0000, Zhang, Ning A wrote: > > > 在 2018-08-03五的 12:31 +0200，gre...@linuxfoundation.org写道： > > > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:42:25AM +0000, Zhang, Ning A wrote: > > > > > 在 2018-08-03五的 07:39 +0200，Greg KH写道： > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 09:45:21AM +0800, Zhang Ning wrote: > > > > > > > when firmware is in filesystem, request_firmware will load > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > and copy it to vmalloc memory, that is page align memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but when firmware is builtin, it is 8 bytes or 4 bytes > > > > > > > alignment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make sure builtin firmware is page algnment, that can > > > > > > > simplify > > > > > > > algorithm > > > > > > > to handle firmware. > > > > > > > > > > > > How is it simplified? I don't see any such change like that > > > > > > here > > > > > > :( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for review this patch. > > > > > > > > > > When driver handles its firmware based on page, like below: > > > > > > > > > > struct page *p; > > > > > p = vmalloc_to_page(fw->data); // for filesystem > > > > > firmware > > > > > p = virt_to_page(fw->data); // for builtin firmware > > > > > > > > > > but if builtin firmware is not page alignment, page pointer for > > > > > builtin > > > > > firmware is wrong, it contains memory not belong to firmware. > > > > > drivers > > > > > has to use additional code to handle this. > > > > > > > > > > if builtin firmware is also page alignment, no need additional > > > > > code > > > > > to > > > > > handle builtin firmware. simplified. > > > > > > > > But you did not change anything like this in your code, so why > > > > would > > > > I > > > > know this? > > > > > > I understand it is very difficult to review this patch without > > > context. > > > The driver is not opensource, I can't show the patch for driver. > > > > Then I can not accept your patch. Go talk to your corporate lawyers > > about changing core kernel code for a closed source driver and what > > that > > implies about that closed driver (hint, your driver can not be > > closed...) :) > > It's very sad,
"sad"? Again, please go discuss this with your corporate lawyers before thinking that this is even something that is possible to do. Hint, if I _were_ to accept this, they would be _VERY_ upset at both me, and you. I am trying to _save_ you problems, please realize this. greg k-h
