On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 22:37 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:10:56PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Johannes Berg > > <johan...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > > > > > > My argument basically goes like this: > > > > > > First, given good drivers (i.e. using request_firmware_nowait()) > > > putting firmware even for a built-in driver into initramfs or not > > > should be a system integrator decision. If they don't need the > > > device > > > that early, it should be possible for them to delay it. Or, > > > perhaps, if > > > the firmware is too big, etc. I'm sure we can all come up with > > > more > > > examples of why you'd want to do it one way or another. > > > > This is how I understood the the situation, but I never quite > > bought > > it. What is wrong with the kernel saying "you must put your module > > and > > your firmware together"? Sure, people may want to do things > > differently, but what is the real blocker? > > 0) Firmware upgrades are possible > 1) Some firmware is optional > 2) Firmware licenses may often not be GPLv2 compatible > 3) Some firmwares may be stupid large (remote-proc) as such > neither built-in firmware nor using the firmware in initramfs > is reasonable.
4) "firmware" may be on a separate flash partition because it's really calibration data required by the (wifi) chip/driver (to allow kernel updates without having to taylor the kernel image to each and every device!! johannes
