From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH linux-firmware] isci: Add firmware blob and sources Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:25:56 +0000 Message-ID: <1324243556.2844.22.camel@deadeye> References: <1324142068.2825.341.camel@deadeye> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-57pL3DIPV8/whev+/Blg" Return-path: Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk ([88.96.1.126]:53346 "EHLO shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752088Ab1LRV0R (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:26:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Cc: Intel SCU Linux support , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse --=-57pL3DIPV8/whev+/Blg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 10:59 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Ben Hutchings wrot= e: > > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > > 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?) >=20 > 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. >=20 > The latest version of probe_roms.h [1] supports the v1.3 oem parameter > format, this patch appears to be v1.0 based. >=20 > Regards, > Dan >=20 > [1]: http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/kernel/git/djbw/isci.git;a=3Dblob;f= =3Ddrivers/scsi/isci/probe_roms.h;hb=3Drefs/heads/fixes --=20 Ben Hutchings Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else. --=-57pL3DIPV8/whev+/Blg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUATu5aZOe/yOyVhhEJAQoYsg/+J2iHG3UKzsi09bvfvnHZ+1rioqDyVPPT cJuKkcstXyJQ+urHg4dpaZebV67ZyG7aa0MKEuILhQcAPqJCIsFyLp5p/3urW8hq +u5O1jMItxSRs0l7/zh+m3hf7P0fNWKXlq4KaEBxHJPtK0KmYZY3NmLDtJmVKuJt h4bENcvclxHou8r/CUAxZABsH93nrhSo42Vck15Y671dIpDsYjKn+Kd/FxM1gJ/k WRF1cckWS22yxJEGAjuqnlg5LRGHtFI9Su2IliVdObsoPv36UAXbvf7IJ75v989w YGnlpOcNRS+NYki0Jsg20tCGaXFcHomNI9gFriKfuW9UYqo2OLraMKVWV0pAeu4F 1zArmKkwdugNGAKcxXZ5Ebwgk4jZjgQO7xreH8N4SLa9ooBoGPNSRCCX4YQWPD7b 0U4P5wux8Q4xl0iKnRVj3tLl0vWGna+svCkxuFU43UZFOdzbR+EQBrHc+nFR8UfZ eC+LgKr0d20KMKAQx16GwPCkZSBd8S5qpianF/G9JhUs+TauNSvdpDKxVxg+VVuc m5ZqUn+L3pHXJcbE2fK/doTlXeWQd5uI4Eh/oQ2c37aqOqojJXtAc+u7Gp6hMi6P S8F5r/BxHgRhVoa4Q8N18V+TOcMGYnHRvGsfN3ihcZRPMYv5f8uumtMc71yr2Clm fL/SzISsY6I= =EF8N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-57pL3DIPV8/whev+/Blg--