On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Mark Brown
> > It seems better to punt that decision to callers - for example, the case > In fact, -ENOENT is returned to caller for non-direct loading situation, > see_request_firmware_load(). > I understand drivers(caller) may be cheated if a zero-length firmware > image is obtained. In normal situation, one firmware image should > include something, instead of nothing, :-) Hrm, that didn't seem to be happening for me - the firmware load completed successfully. Have to check how that happened. > > I ran into this with was a driver that was using a zero length firmware > > to say that it didn't want to load an optional image but also didn't > > want to have to time out if that was the case. That doesn't seem > If so, I am wondering why the driver has to call request_firmware()? > Looks just bypassing request_firmware() is fine for the driver, doesn't it? A driver has no way to tell if the firmware is there or not without asking for it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
