From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@gmail.com>
Cc: Intel SCU Linux support <intel-linux-scu@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH linux-firmware] isci: Add firmware blob and sources
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:25:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1324243556.2844.22.camel@deadeye> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA9_cmd9KMS3UBsQJ0WxT0rtQJVWceVwxvyXtRD+PuzwjUHUGA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1686 bytes --]
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 10:59 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > isci requires a parameter blob which is usually found in NVRAM, but it
> > can fall back to loading with request_firmware(). These files are
> > taken from the Linux source tree where they were wrongly added in
> > Linux 3.0.
>
> Oh, I was of the impression that the external firmware tree was for
> license incompatible firmware images?
firmware/README.AddingFirmware doesn't say that the licence makes a
difference.
> > ---
> > I'm a bit unclear on the purpose and use of isci_firmware.bin. Is it
> > needed for production hardware?
>
> It's a stop gap for platforms with missing or broken oem parameters.
> It is meant to become vestigial once the platform revisions quiet
> down.
>
> > Does it need to be customised
> > per-system, or are module parameters sufficient for that? (If not, why
> > isn't it built into the driver?)
>
> It is customized per system to meet EMI and signal integrity targets
> of a given platform.
Given this, does it make sense to distribute a binary at all?
Ben.
> > probe_roms.h is labelled with a dual BSD/GPLv2 licence but the other
> > files had no licence header so I've treated them as GPLv2 by default.
>
> The latest version of probe_roms.h [1] supports the v1.3 oem parameter
> format, this patch appears to be v1.0 based.
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
> [1]: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/djbw/isci.git;a=blob;f=drivers/scsi/isci/probe_roms.h;hb=refs/heads/fixes
--
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-18 21:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-17 17:14 [RFC][PATCH linux-firmware] isci: Add firmware blob and sources Ben Hutchings
2011-12-18 18:59 ` Dan Williams
2011-12-18 21:25 ` Ben Hutchings [this message]
2011-12-19 0:15 ` Dan Williams
2011-12-29 17:04 ` Ben Hutchings
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1324243556.2844.22.camel@deadeye \
--to=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=dan.j.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=intel-linux-scu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox