Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel, use it in more drivers.

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...>
Cc: <torvalds@...>, <akpm@...>, <alan@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, David Miller <davem@...>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2008 - 9:45 pm

David Woodhouse wrote:


After the long threads, you would think you would have at least 
mentioned controversy attached to these changes?

Or perhaps mention that you are specifically excluding the ability to 
build firmware into modules -- the most reliable method available for 
those who use modules, MORE reliable than a system where firmware and 
kernel module are separated.

Or some of the objections raised, that were not met?

Or even _acknowledge_ that these changes have a high probability of 
creating a non-working driver, and therefore advising distros with Big 
Fat Warnings and Be Carefuls sprinkled liberally?

Or perhaps describe the outside-the-kernel migration path for distros?

Isn't it silly to create firmware/ top-level dir, when the firmware more 
naturally lives in the same dir as the driver to which it is intimately 
tied?  We'll just have to start creating firmware/net firmware/char 
firmware/media etc. after a while.

What about keeping binary objects as binary objects?  Surely git can 
handle binary file.  And you are already converting each firmware's data 
from format A to format B.  Might as well convert it to unpacked, 
un-ASCII'd format that will be loaded directly, as that can be easier in 
some cases.

I think it's just downright shady to push this crap without mentioning 
any of the swirl of issues surrounding this, that are quite relevant to 
its inclusion.

It should be obvious that building firmware into a kernel module (or the 
kernel itself, if you don't use modules) is _the_ most reliable method 
of ensuring your driver will work [if it requires firmware].

	Jeff



--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Jeff Garzik, (Mon Jul 14, 9:45 pm)
Prosaic firmware issues, Alexey Dobriyan, (Tue Jul 15, 9:11 pm)
Re: Prosaic firmware issues, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Jul 15, 9:45 pm)
Re: Prosaic firmware issues, David Woodhouse, (Wed Jul 16, 1:54 am)
Re: Prosaic firmware issues, Alexey Dobriyan, (Wed Jul 16, 10:19 am)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Tue Jul 15, 2:05 pm)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Jul 15, 12:04 pm)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Tue Jul 15, 1:05 am)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Tue Jul 15, 1:15 am)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Jul 15, 12:56 am)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied , Oliver Neukum, (Tue Jul 15, 2:23 am)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied , Oliver Neukum, (Tue Jul 15, 12:52 pm)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Tue Jul 15, 4:45 pm)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Wed Jul 16, 5:28 pm)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Jul 17, 4:42 pm)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Jul 17, 6:25 pm)
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Tue Jul 15, 7:45 pm)