From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: EFI: Stash ROMs if they're not in the PCI BAR Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:44:35 +0000 Message-ID: <514976F3.2@console-pimps.org> References: <20130315082928.GA14520@longonot.mountain> <1363337872.2444.9.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <1363606563.15011.333.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> <1363622520.2553.8.camel@x230.sbx07502.somerma.wayport.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1363622520.2553.8.camel-tCUS0Eywp2Pehftex57rkxo58HMYffqeLoYNBG0abjxeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: David Woodhouse , Dan Carpenter , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 03/18/2013 04:02 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 11:36 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 08:57 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> True. It probably doesn't *matter* because the size is zero so the >>> firmware is just going to ignore the pointer anyway. Although in that >>> case I wonder why we couldn't have just passed NULL. Perhaps we expected >>> that some firmware might do some validation on the pointer before >>> getting to the size check? >> >> I doubt that the firmware checks the validity of pci_handle when size is >> zero, and I agree it's worth passing NULL to silence the warning (which >> is also more explicit that just initialising pci_handle), unless Matthew >> knows of a reason we shouldn't do that? > > No reason I can think of, and any failure will be pretty immediately > obvious. Anyone want to submit a patch? -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center