On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > I think they will be accepted if they first introduce a transition > period where tg3 will do request_firmware() and only use the built-in > firmware if that fails.
Fine with me. > Second step is to make the built-in firmware a > config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for > firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver > entirely. I think the infrasturcture is quite mature. We have a lot of drivers that require it to function. > One of the sticking points will be how people get the firmware; I can > see the point of a kernel-distributable-firmware project related to the > kernel (say on kernel.org) which would provide a nice collection of > distributable firmwares (and is appropriately licensed). Without such > joint infrastructure things will always be a mess and in that context I > can see the point of the driver authors not immediately wanting to > switch exclusively. Simply because they'll get swamped with email about > how the driver doesn't work... I agree. And that really doesn't need a lot of infrastructure, basically just a tarball that unpacks to /lib/firmware, maybe a specfile and debian/ dir in addition. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
