Marcel,

quoted text
> The kernel should not in any case have knowledge about directories or =20
> subdirectories where the firmware files are stored. That is fully =20
> irrelevant for the kernel.

Exactly my point! Hence, the kernel just gives it an arbitrary name. The
fact that userspace uses this as a filename could be regarded as a bug,
but it works fine. Therefore, the kernel simply assigns an arbitrary,
NULL-terminated string as the name. It happens to include a / because it
is convenient with the current userspace implementation, but that's mere
detail, the ABI/API here is to allow any arbitrary names.

quoted text
> Especially with the case of built-in firmwares now, it because more =20
> important to do it right. The one reason why we have to handover the =20
> struct device to request_firmware() is that we can give the helper =20
> script full access to the device and driver information of the caller. =20
> Hence adding for example b43/ as prefix simply duplicates everything =20
> since the struct device has a link to the driver that is requesting a =20
> firmware file.

But that doesn't matter at all! Dave's work to build firmware files into
the kernel will simply result in an entry in the kernel firmware table
that has a '.name =3D "b43/pcm5.fw"', nothing needs to know that b43 is a
module name, in fact, it could very well be 'broadcom wlan/pcm5.fw' as
well.

quoted text
> That is not what I am proposing. What I am proposing is that we do =20
> this the right way. Meaning that we fix udev to do the namespacing. I =20
> am working on a way to have this change in a backward compatible way.

That will introduce a "flag-day" where you have to upgrade userspace
with the kernel, and vice versa, OR userspace will have to guess. Not a
good solution either.

Why are you so fixated on special-casing the single character '/'?

johannes