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: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, <jeff@...>, <arjan@...>, <akpm@...>, <alan@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 3:13 pm

On Tuesday 15 July 2008, David Woodhouse wrote:

With the disclaimer that I really haven't researched this all that much I 
think we'll end up finding that a multi-level model is needed.

Something like:
- /lib/firmware: intended for externally provided firmware and local
  overrides; try to load from there first (version checks may fail)
- /lib/modules/firmware: not sure if this level is necessary, but
  could be useful for e.g. firmware for out-of-tree drivers
- /lib/modules/$kver/firmware or
  /lib/modules/$kver/$modulepath: firmware built (and possibly packaged
  together with the kernel

Some scheme like this would introduce at least some sanity when it comes 
to keeping control of what is installed and provided (and may therefore 
be removed) by what and to avoid the question "how the hell did that file 
get there and do I still actually need it with my current kernels?".

It sounds to me like $(INSTALL_FW_PATH) is a good start, but maybe even 
too flexible as it does not define a standard: it allows user spaces of 
different distros to diverge which at some point will create its own 
nightmares.
It's also not flexible enough as it only supports a single location for 
firmware while clearly there can be different sources of firmware.

Cheers,
FJP
--
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, 3:13 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)