Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-13 Thread Bjorn Andersson
On Tue 11 Oct 06:39 PDT 2016, Matt Redfearn wrote: > Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer > to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked > onto the end of the struct proc allocated in rproc_alloc. > Instead of using a statically sized

Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-13 Thread Bjorn Andersson
On Tue 11 Oct 06:39 PDT 2016, Matt Redfearn wrote: > Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer > to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked > onto the end of the struct proc allocated in rproc_alloc. > Instead of using a statically sized

Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-13 Thread Matt Redfearn
Hi Loic, On 13/10/16 14:22, loic pallardy wrote: On 10/11/2016 03:39 PM, Matt Redfearn wrote: Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked onto the end of the struct proc allocated in

Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-13 Thread Matt Redfearn
Hi Loic, On 13/10/16 14:22, loic pallardy wrote: On 10/11/2016 03:39 PM, Matt Redfearn wrote: Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked onto the end of the struct proc allocated in

Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-13 Thread loic pallardy
On 10/11/2016 03:39 PM, Matt Redfearn wrote: Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked onto the end of the struct proc allocated in rproc_alloc. In preparation for allowing the firmware of an

Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-13 Thread loic pallardy
On 10/11/2016 03:39 PM, Matt Redfearn wrote: Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked onto the end of the struct proc allocated in rproc_alloc. In preparation for allowing the firmware of an

[PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-11 Thread Matt Redfearn
Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked onto the end of the struct proc allocated in rproc_alloc. In preparation for allowing the firmware of an already allocated struct rproc to be changed, the

[PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: Use fixed length field for firmware name

2016-10-11 Thread Matt Redfearn
Storage of the firmware name was inconsistent, either storing a pointer to a name stored with unknown ownership, or a variable length tacked onto the end of the struct proc allocated in rproc_alloc. In preparation for allowing the firmware of an already allocated struct rproc to be changed, the