From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Kuzminsky Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:13:59 +0000 Subject: Re: absolute firmware paths Message-Id: <200807051013.59593.seb@highlab.com> List-Id: References: <200806302204.05544.seb@highlab.com> In-Reply-To: <200806302204.05544.seb@highlab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Fri July 4 2008 02:30:25 Marcel Holtmann wrote: > 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? -- Sebastian Kuzminsky you are the only light there is for yourself my friend -- Gogol Bordello