From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:30:25 +0200

quoted text
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:21:50PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@broadcom.com>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:51 -0700
> > 
> > > The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently.  A new driver quite often
> > > requires new firmware to work correctly.  Splitting them up makes things
> > > difficult for the user.
> > > 
> > > The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to
> > > change.  I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware().
> > 
> > Like I said, I think neither should change and the driver should
> > be fully functional when built statically into the kernel.
> 
> Michael, doesn't a functional-yet-suboptimal firmware exist ? I mean,
> just the same principle as we all have kernels, boot CDs, statically
> built tools, etc... which run everywhere. If you have such a beast,
> maybe it would be a good start to have it in the kernel, and provide
> the users with the ability to upgrade the firmware once the system
> is able to do more complex things.
> 
> Just a thought...

So let's save 60K instead of 80K.

I mean, the entire discussion is just plain silly :)
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/