Re: absolute firmware paths

[Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>]

Hi Sebastian,

> > > > Also since you are talking about development here. So what has this to
> > > > do with the upstream kernel and why do we need it there. You can always
> > > > install your own firmware.sh file that does special things in case
> > > > files are requested for your driver. And actually you don't even have
> > > > to overwrite firmware.sh for it. Simply install a new udev rule for
> > > > only that driver.
> > >
> > > Yeah, our own udev rule and our own firmware.sh is one of the options
> > > we're considering.  It'd be easy to do.  I just think it's a generally
> > > good idea and I thought that upstream udev might be interested.
> >
> > using your own firmware.sh and an udev rule is so simply. So don't
> > bother the kernel with any changes. Also the kernel does not make policy
> > decisions. The /lib/firmware location is a userspace policy.
> 
> Did you read my email?
> 
> You're the only one here talking about putting policy in the kernel,
> or making any kernel changes at all.
> 
> I'm suggesting a small change to the existing policy in *udev*.  This is
> the list for discussing udev, no?

you are talking about adding a module parameter for a absolute path to
the driver. That is putting policy into the kernel.

And again, what is the big issue with an udev rule for your development
case?

Regards

Marcel