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: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Frans Pop <elendil@...>, <david@...>, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...>, <arjan@...>, <akpm@...>, <alan@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:42 am

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:43:07PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

Exactly. To give you an idea, I have a lot of servers running on a
"firmware" which consists in two parts :
  - a bzImage containing an initramfs with modules and a few scripts
  - an initrd which is in fact the rootfs

When the kernel boots, it mounts the initrd, does a pivot_root and mounts
its modules into /boot/$(uname -r). All my kernels run modules from /boot
and not from /lib/modules, because it makes them more convenient to add
and remove. So /lib/modules is just a symlink to /boot.

The above process is very convenient, as it is compatible with a lot of
boot methods : hard disk, CDROM, USB stick, PXE, etc...

And moreover, I can have multiple kernels with only one rootfs (SMP, etc).
Introducing firmware there would mean a major thinking and rework of the
build (and possibly boot) process. The least invasive would probably be
to stuff them next to the modules in $(uname -r)/firmware, but even then,
it will take a lot of time to switch to a new system.

And judging from what I see around, I'm far from being the only one not
using mkinitrd.

Willy

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

Messages in current thread:
Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in..., Willy Tarreau, (Wed Jul 16, 12:42 am)
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)