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: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Cc: <jeff@...>, <arjan@...>, <akpm@...>, <dwmw2@...>, <alan@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 12:37 pm

On Tuesday 15 July 2008, you wrote:

Important note: this is not me, this is the Debian kernel team based on 
Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). If it were purely up to me I'd be 
a lot more pragmatic.

1) Because Debian _wants_ them split out for DFSG compliance reasons.
Most of the current firmware packages are kept in the "non-free" section 
of the Debian archive while the kernel itself lives in "main".
As long as firmware could not be split out, the compliance problem was the 
source of many discussions, but for the most part ignored in practice, 
with the exception of a few drivers with really problematic firmware 
licences.

2) Because of the overwrite and version management problems.
/lib/firmware as a single dumping ground for firmware for all kernel 
versions really sucks from that PoV. One of the huge strengths of Debian 
is its ability to clean up after itself when packages are removed.
This is partially solved by giving each firmware file it's own package 
because then you can use the versioning of the firmware itself in the 
package versions, which allows proper file management by the packaging 
system. But as I said, I'm not sure that still works if their number 
suddenly explodes.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
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..., Frans Pop, (Tue Jul 15, 12:37 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)