On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:57:57PM +0530, Ayush Singh wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c index 9a09bd3af79ba0dcf7efa683f4e86246bcd473a5..06f1be8f3121e29551ea8416d5ee2666339b2fe3 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-download.c @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ static int exceeds_release_timeout(struct fw_request *fw_req) /* This returns path of the firmware blob on the disk */ static struct fw_request *find_firmware(struct fw_download *fw_download,
const char *tag)
const char *tag, const char *format){ struct gb_interface *intf = fw_download->connection->bundle->intf; struct fw_request *fw_req; @@ -178,10 +178,17 @@ static struct fw_request *find_firmware(struct fw_download *fw_download, } fw_req->firmware_id = ret;
- snprintf(fw_req->name, sizeof(fw_req->name),
FW_NAME_PREFIX "%08x_%08x_%08x_%08x_%s.tftf",intf->ddbl1_manufacturer_id, intf->ddbl1_product_id,intf->vendor_id, intf->product_id, tag);
- if (strnlen(format, GB_FIRMWARE_FORMAT_MAX_SIZE) == 0) {
Change this to:
if (format[0] == '\0') {
In the caller, the assumption that format is at least GB_FIRMWARE_FORMAT_MAX_SIZE makes sense but in this function it doesn't make sense.
snprintf(fw_req->name, sizeof(fw_req->name),FW_NAME_PREFIX "%08x_%08x_%08x_%08x_%s",intf->ddbl1_manufacturer_id, intf->ddbl1_product_id,intf->vendor_id, intf->product_id, tag);- } else {
snprintf(fw_req->name, sizeof(fw_req->name),FW_NAME_PREFIX "%08x_%08x_%08x_%08x_%s.%s",intf->ddbl1_manufacturer_id, intf->ddbl1_product_id,intf->vendor_id, intf->product_id, tag, format);- }
dev_info(fw_download->parent, "Requested firmware package '%s'\n", fw_req->name); @@ -225,7 +232,7 @@ static int fw_download_find_firmware(struct gb_operation *op) struct gb_fw_download_find_firmware_request *request; struct gb_fw_download_find_firmware_response *response; struct fw_request *fw_req;
- const char *tag;
- const char *tag, *format;
if (op->request->payload_size != sizeof(*request)) { dev_err(fw_download->parent,
We have changed the sizeof(*request) but we haven't changed ->payload_size so how can this ever be true? Did you test this change?
regards, dan carpenter