From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754069Ab2JIIRv (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:17:51 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:48325 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753536Ab2JIIRt (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:17:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:52:23 +0900 From: Mark Brown To: Ming Lei Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with vmalloc() Message-ID: <20121009074138.GB8237@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1349456731-19977-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20121009041947.GB8237@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20121009071343.GW8237@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Cookie: Your present plans will be successful. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:34:52PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > Yes, I agree, and my question is only on what you mentioned: > "it didn't want to load an optional image" > maybe I misunderstood the above, never mind, :-) > So one driver should suppose the firmware is there, and the > firmware shouldn't be zero length, because the driver always > expects getting some bytes by calling request_firmware(). The point is that there's some firmware which the driver wants to load but where it's happy to continue if the user didn't provide one and doesn't want to introduce needless delays.