Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 490 bytes --]

I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
regardless of the controller version.

This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
linux-firmware.

If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
generation, and get them into linux-firmware.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Larry Finger]

On 04/10/2011 10:56 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
> regardless of the controller version.
>
> This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
> linux-firmware.
>
> If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
> please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
> generation, and get them into linux-firmware.

With rt2800pci, my rt3090 works with rt2860.bin, which is already in linux-firmware.

Larry

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ivo Van Doorn]

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
> regardless of the controller version.
>
> This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
> linux-firmware.

Well the rt2800pci/usb firmware behavior is consistent with the original
Ralink drivers (Not sure about the staging drivers, I only look to the drivers
on the Ralink website).

As for the linux-firmware that contains some firmware files for rt30** chipsets,
but that are not used by rt2800pci/usb for the simple reason that the latest
version of the rt2860.bin and rt2870.bin files contain support for
those chipsets
as well.

> If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
> please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
> generation, and get them into linux-firmware.

Updating the firmware files in the linux-firmware tree seems to be
close to impossible. Multiple attempts have been made to update the
firmware files for rt73usb, rt61pci, rt2800pci and rt2800usb, and every
attempt has been ignored.
Even when Ralink sent the update directly, and it seemed that the patches
were accepted, they were still not applied.
So honestly, I think it might be easier to simply remove the Ralink firmware
files from the linux-firmware tree, as then at least the users won't accidently
use the outdated firmware files from that tree.

Ivo

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3513 bytes --]

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 18:35 +0200, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
> > regardless of the controller version.
> >
> > This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
> > linux-firmware.
> 
> Well the rt2800pci/usb firmware behavior is consistent with the original
> Ralink drivers (Not sure about the staging drivers, I only look to the drivers
> on the Ralink website).

Are you referring to the #ifdef BIN_IN_FILE code?  This code is not
enabled, so you should assume it is broken.  I suspect that it was
intended to ease firmware development.

Ralink provides multiple drivers per bus type for RT28xx and later
chips.  For PCI devices they split between RT2860 and RT309x; for USB
devices they split between RT2870 and RT307x (I think - the chip model
numbers don't seem to be stated consistently).

In addition, the USB drivers have two separate images packed together
and they can select different images based on the controller version:

#ifdef RTMP_MAC_USB
		if ((Version != 0x2860) && (Version != 0x2872) && (Version != 0x3070)) 
		{	// Use Firmware V2.
			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part2\n");
			pFirmwareImage = (PUCHAR)&FirmwareImage[FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH];
			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV2_LENGTH;
		}
		else
		{
			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part1\n");
			pFirmwareImage = FirmwareImage;
			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH;
		}
#endif // RTMP_MAC_USB //

The firmware blobs in RT2870 version 2009-08-20 and RT3070 version
2009-05-25 are all marked as version 17 (or 0.17), but *they all have
different contents*.

I attempted to maintain the same version selection logic when converting
the staging drivers to use the firmware loader, since I assumed there
was a good reason for it.

> As for the linux-firmware that contains some firmware files for rt30** chipsets,
> but that are not used by rt2800pci/usb for the simple reason that the latest
> version of the rt2860.bin and rt2870.bin files contain support for
> those chipsets
> as well.

So I have heard.  But do they still support the original chips
correctly?

> > If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
> > please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
> > generation, and get them into linux-firmware.
> 
> Updating the firmware files in the linux-firmware tree seems to be
> close to impossible. Multiple attempts have been made to update the
> firmware files for rt73usb, rt61pci, rt2800pci and rt2800usb, and every
> attempt has been ignored.
> Even when Ralink sent the update directly, and it seemed that the patches
> were accepted, they were still not applied.

This roughly matches my experience, except that I have been persistent
enough to get my changes applied eventually.

> So honestly, I think it might be easier to simply remove the Ralink firmware
> files from the linux-firmware tree, as then at least the users won't accidently
> use the outdated firmware files from that tree.

linux-firmware is supposed to have all firmware files referenced by any
version of Linux; therefore these files must not be removed.

If just two files are sufficient then the other files could be replaced
by symlinks to them.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ivo Van Doorn]

Hi,

>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>> > I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
>> > regardless of the controller version.
>> >
>> > This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
>> > linux-firmware.
>>
>> Well the rt2800pci/usb firmware behavior is consistent with the original
>> Ralink drivers (Not sure about the staging drivers, I only look to the drivers
>> on the Ralink website).
>
> Are you referring to the #ifdef BIN_IN_FILE code?  This code is not
> enabled, so you should assume it is broken.  I suspect that it was
> intended to ease firmware development.

Not only BIN_IN_FILE, but the .bin files provided in the Ralink package
itself. At some point I grabbed all .bin files from all Ralink packages,
and compared them.

I also grabbed the firmware files, which Ralink provided separately,
Basically it was very clear that the firmware provided by rt3070, was
a simple later release of the rt2860 firmware (which is still used
for rt2860 devices).

So with new versions of the firmware, support for new chipsets was
being addded.

> Ralink provides multiple drivers per bus type for RT28xx and later
> chips.  For PCI devices they split between RT2860 and RT309x; for USB
> devices they split between RT2870 and RT307x (I think - the chip model
> numbers don't seem to be stated consistently).
>
> In addition, the USB drivers have two separate images packed together
> and they can select different images based on the controller version:
>
> #ifdef RTMP_MAC_USB
>                if ((Version != 0x2860) && (Version != 0x2872) && (Version != 0x3070))
>                {       // Use Firmware V2.
>                        //printk("KH:Use New Version,part2\n");
>                        pFirmwareImage = (PUCHAR)&FirmwareImage[FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH];
>                        FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV2_LENGTH;
>                }
>                else
>                {
>                        //printk("KH:Use New Version,part1\n");
>                        pFirmwareImage = FirmwareImage;
>                        FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH;
>                }
> #endif // RTMP_MAC_USB //
>
> The firmware blobs in RT2870 version 2009-08-20 and RT3070 version
> 2009-05-25 are all marked as version 17 (or 0.17), but *they all have
> different contents*.

How do you determine this version? I usually check the last couple
of bytes of the firmware file. (The last 2 bytes of the firmware is the CRC,
but the 2 bytes before that is the version).

> I attempted to maintain the same version selection logic when converting
> the staging drivers to use the firmware loader, since I assumed there
> was a good reason for it.
>
>> As for the linux-firmware that contains some firmware files for rt30** chipsets,
>> but that are not used by rt2800pci/usb for the simple reason that the latest
>> version of the rt2860.bin and rt2870.bin files contain support for
>> those chipsets
>> as well.
>
> So I have heard.  But do they still support the original chips
> correctly?

Yes, I am using the latest firmware for my rt2860/2870 devices
without problems.

>> > If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
>> > please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
>> > generation, and get them into linux-firmware.
>>
>> Updating the firmware files in the linux-firmware tree seems to be
>> close to impossible. Multiple attempts have been made to update the
>> firmware files for rt73usb, rt61pci, rt2800pci and rt2800usb, and every
>> attempt has been ignored.
>> Even when Ralink sent the update directly, and it seemed that the patches
>> were accepted, they were still not applied.
>
> This roughly matches my experience, except that I have been persistent
> enough to get my changes applied eventually.
>
>> So honestly, I think it might be easier to simply remove the Ralink firmware
>> files from the linux-firmware tree, as then at least the users won't accidently
>> use the outdated firmware files from that tree.
>
> linux-firmware is supposed to have all firmware files referenced by any
> version of Linux; therefore these files must not be removed.

I agree that the firmware should be in linux-firmware, but only if they
are the latest version (and it is possible to keep them up-to-date). Having
outdated firmware in the linux-firmware tree only causes more problems.

> If just two files are sufficient then the other files could be replaced
> by symlinks to them.

Why? The patch to remove the staging drivers has been sent out a few
days ago. After that we only have rt2800pci and rt2800usb drivers,
so we can get rid of the rt30xx files completely. ;)

Ivo

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2745 bytes --]

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 20:06 +0200, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> >> > I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
> >> > regardless of the controller version.
> >> >
> >> > This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
> >> > linux-firmware.
> >>
> >> Well the rt2800pci/usb firmware behavior is consistent with the original
> >> Ralink drivers (Not sure about the staging drivers, I only look to the drivers
> >> on the Ralink website).
> >
> > Are you referring to the #ifdef BIN_IN_FILE code?  This code is not
> > enabled, so you should assume it is broken.  I suspect that it was
> > intended to ease firmware development.
> 
> Not only BIN_IN_FILE, but the .bin files provided in the Ralink package
> itself. At some point I grabbed all .bin files from all Ralink packages,
> and compared them.

But this proves nothing, because the Ralink drivers don't use those
files!

[...]
> > The firmware blobs in RT2870 version 2009-08-20 and RT3070 version
> > 2009-05-25 are all marked as version 17 (or 0.17), but *they all have
> > different contents*.
> 
> How do you determine this version? I usually check the last couple
> of bytes of the firmware file. (The last 2 bytes of the firmware is the CRC,
> but the 2 bytes before that is the version).

That's exactly what I'm looking at, in the file include/firmware.h.
There are 256 lines * 16 bytes for each image, so the images end with:

RT2870 image 1: 0x00, 0x11, 0xc2, 0x7a 
RT2870 image 2: 0x00, 0x11, 0x77, 0x81
RT3070 image 1: 0x00, 0x11, 0x7b, 0xc4
RT3070 image 2: 0x00, 0x11, 0x65, 0xd3

By the way, there is a comment in common/rtmp_mcu.c which says the
version number for these chips is only 1 byte.

[...]
> > linux-firmware is supposed to have all firmware files referenced by any
                                       ---                              ---
> > version of Linux; therefore these files must not be removed.
> 
> I agree that the firmware should be in linux-firmware, but only if they
> are the latest version (and it is possible to keep them up-to-date). Having
> outdated firmware in the linux-firmware tree only causes more problems.
> 
> > If just two files are sufficient then the other files could be replaced
> > by symlinks to them.
> 
> Why? The patch to remove the staging drivers has been sent out a few
> days ago. After that we only have rt2800pci and rt2800usb drivers,
> so we can get rid of the rt30xx files completely. ;)

No.  Read what I said again.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Larry Finger wrote:

> With rt2800pci, my rt3090 works with rt2860.bin, which is already in linux-firmware.

rt2870.bin and rt2860.bin files in linux-firmware are *obsolete*
get latest from: http://www.ralinktech.com/support.php?s=2

(This weekend the ralink web is down).

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Ben Hutchings wrote:

> I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
> regardless of the controller version.
> 
> This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
> linux-firmware.
> 
> If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
> please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
> generation, and get them into linux-firmware.

querida:/datos/kernel/linux-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00 $ grep "\.bin" *
rt2800pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2860			"rt2860.bin"
rt2800usb.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2870			"rt2870.bin"
rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2561			"rt2561.bin"
rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2561s			"rt2561s.bin"
rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2661			"rt2661.bin"
rt73usb.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2571			"rt73.bin"

rt3070.bin rt3071.bin rt3090.bin should be deleted from linux-firmware.
They were only need by staging drivers.

-- 
«Allá muevan feroz guerra, ciegos reyes por un palmo más de tierra;
que yo aquí tengo por mío cuanto abarca el mar bravío, a quien nadie
impuso leyes. Y no hay playa, sea cualquiera, ni bandera de esplendor,
que no sienta mi derecho y dé pecho a mi valor.»

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ivo Van Doorn]

Hi.

>> I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
>> regardless of the controller version.
>>
>> This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
>> linux-firmware.
>>
>> If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
>> please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
>> generation, and get them into linux-firmware.
>
> querida:/datos/kernel/linux-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00 $ grep "\.bin" *
> rt2800pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2860                     "rt2860.bin"
> rt2800usb.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2870                     "rt2870.bin"
> rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2561                       "rt2561.bin"
> rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2561s                      "rt2561s.bin"
> rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2661                       "rt2661.bin"
> rt73usb.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2571                       "rt73.bin"
>
> rt3070.bin rt3071.bin rt3090.bin should be deleted from linux-firmware.
> They were only need by staging drivers.

True, but the rt2860 and rt2870 firmware file are outdated in the
linux-firmware,
and probably don't support the rt3090 or other more recent chipsets. So before
they can be removed, those files must be updated.

Ivo

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

On 04/10/2011 07:35 PM, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:

> True, but the rt2860 and rt2870 firmware file are outdated in the
> linux-firmware,
> and probably don't support the rt3090 or other more recent chipsets. So before
> they can be removed, those files must be updated.

Larry Finger sent a patch to remove the rt28{6,7}0 staging drivers.
So the rt3070.bin rt3071.bin rt3090.bin files in linux-firmware
also can be removed, because they are included _only_ in the rt28{6,7}0 
staging drivers.

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Larry Finger]

On 04/10/2011 12:35 PM, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
> Hi.
>
>>> I notice that rt2800{pci,usb} each specify only one firmware image,
>>> regardless of the controller version.
>>>
>>> This is inconsistent with rt28{6,7}0sta and with the firmware images in
>>> linux-firmware.
>>>
>>> If you think that a single image per bus type can cover all controllers,
>>> please identify those firmware images, test them on each hardware
>>> generation, and get them into linux-firmware.
>>
>> querida:/datos/kernel/linux-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00 $ grep "\.bin" *
>> rt2800pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2860                     "rt2860.bin"
>> rt2800usb.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2870                     "rt2870.bin"
>> rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2561                       "rt2561.bin"
>> rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2561s                      "rt2561s.bin"
>> rt61pci.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2661                       "rt2661.bin"
>> rt73usb.h:#define FIRMWARE_RT2571                       "rt73.bin"
>>
>> rt3070.bin rt3071.bin rt3090.bin should be deleted from linux-firmware.
>> They were only need by staging drivers.
>
> True, but the rt2860 and rt2870 firmware file are outdated in the
> linux-firmware,
> and probably don't support the rt3090 or other more recent chipsets. So before
> they can be removed, those files must be updated.

As I wrote earlier, my RT3090 is supported by rt2860.bin. I haven't tested 
everything, but is functioned in STA and ad-hoc modes.

Larry

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Ben Hutchings wrote:

> Ralink provides multiple drivers per bus type for RT28xx and later
> chips.  For PCI devices they split between RT2860 and RT309x; for USB
> devices they split between RT2870 and RT307x (I think - the chip model
> numbers don't seem to be stated consistently).
> 
> In addition, the USB drivers have two separate images packed together
> and they can select different images based on the controller version:
> 
> #ifdef RTMP_MAC_USB
> 		if ((Version != 0x2860) && (Version != 0x2872) && (Version != 0x3070)) 
> 		{	// Use Firmware V2.
> 			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part2\n");
> 			pFirmwareImage = (PUCHAR)&FirmwareImage[FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH];
> 			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV2_LENGTH;
> 		}
> 		else
> 		{
> 			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part1\n");
> 			pFirmwareImage = FirmwareImage;
> 			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH;
> 		}
> #endif // RTMP_MAC_USB //
> 
> The firmware blobs in RT2870 version 2009-08-20 and RT3070 version
> 2009-05-25 are all marked as version 17 (or 0.17), but *they all have
> different contents*.
> 
> I attempted to maintain the same version selection logic when converting
> the staging drivers to use the firmware loader, since I assumed there
> was a good reason for it.
> 

As you can see in the ralink web[1] RT28XX/RT30XX USB devices (RT2870/RT2770/RT3572/RT3070)
need _only_ the rt2870.bin fw-file.

And RT28XX/RT30XX PCI/mPCI/PCIe/CardBus devices
(RT2760/RT2790/RT2860/RT2890/RT3060/RT3062/RT3562/RT2860/RT2760/RT2890/RT2790/RT3090)
need _only_ the rt2860.bin fw-file.

> linux-firmware is supposed to have all firmware files referenced by any
> version of Linux

That's a good joke!
linux-firmware is *unmaintained* , a lot of firmwares are missing.
Even the intel ones(microcode.dat, ipw2{1,2}*), zd1211, etc...
Others are very old, really it's a mess.
Fedora puts _forty_ patches on top of linux-firmware.

[1] http://www.ralinktech.com/support.php?s=2

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2558 bytes --]

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:25 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 
> > Ralink provides multiple drivers per bus type for RT28xx and later
> > chips.  For PCI devices they split between RT2860 and RT309x; for USB
> > devices they split between RT2870 and RT307x (I think - the chip model
> > numbers don't seem to be stated consistently).
> > 
> > In addition, the USB drivers have two separate images packed together
> > and they can select different images based on the controller version:
> > 
> > #ifdef RTMP_MAC_USB
> > 		if ((Version != 0x2860) && (Version != 0x2872) && (Version != 0x3070)) 
> > 		{	// Use Firmware V2.
> > 			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part2\n");
> > 			pFirmwareImage = (PUCHAR)&FirmwareImage[FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH];
> > 			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV2_LENGTH;
> > 		}
> > 		else
> > 		{
> > 			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part1\n");
> > 			pFirmwareImage = FirmwareImage;
> > 			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH;
> > 		}
> > #endif // RTMP_MAC_USB //
> > 
> > The firmware blobs in RT2870 version 2009-08-20 and RT3070 version
> > 2009-05-25 are all marked as version 17 (or 0.17), but *they all have
> > different contents*.
> > 
> > I attempted to maintain the same version selection logic when converting
> > the staging drivers to use the firmware loader, since I assumed there
> > was a good reason for it.
> > 
> 
> As you can see in the ralink web[1] RT28XX/RT30XX USB devices (RT2870/RT2770/RT3572/RT3070)
> need _only_ the rt2870.bin fw-file.
> 
> And RT28XX/RT30XX PCI/mPCI/PCIe/CardBus devices
> (RT2760/RT2790/RT2860/RT2890/RT3060/RT3062/RT3562/RT2860/RT2760/RT2890/RT2790/RT3090)
> need _only_ the rt2860.bin fw-file.

These files aren't used by the Ralink drivers.  So why should you
believe the labels on them?

> > linux-firmware is supposed to have all firmware files referenced by any
> > version of Linux
> 
> That's a good joke!
> linux-firmware is *unmaintained* , a lot of firmwares are missing.

linux-firmware is not *actively* maintained; it requires people to send
submissions (repeatedly...).

> Even the intel ones(microcode.dat, ipw2{1,2}*), zd1211, etc...

I think there may be a problem with distribution of Intel Pro Wireless
firmware because Intel requires users to accept a EULA.

> Others are very old, really it's a mess.
> Fedora puts _forty_ patches on top of linux-firmware.

So help to make it better.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Larry Finger]

On 04/10/2011 04:03 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:25 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>>> Ralink provides multiple drivers per bus type for RT28xx and later
>>> chips.  For PCI devices they split between RT2860 and RT309x; for USB
>>> devices they split between RT2870 and RT307x (I think - the chip model
>>> numbers don't seem to be stated consistently).
>>>
>>> In addition, the USB drivers have two separate images packed together
>>> and they can select different images based on the controller version:
>>>
>>> #ifdef RTMP_MAC_USB
>>> 		if ((Version != 0x2860)&&  (Version != 0x2872)&&  (Version != 0x3070))
>>> 		{	// Use Firmware V2.
>>> 			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part2\n");
>>> 			pFirmwareImage = (PUCHAR)&FirmwareImage[FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH];
>>> 			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV2_LENGTH;
>>> 		}
>>> 		else
>>> 		{
>>> 			//printk("KH:Use New Version,part1\n");
>>> 			pFirmwareImage = FirmwareImage;
>>> 			FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH;
>>> 		}
>>> #endif // RTMP_MAC_USB //
>>>
>>> The firmware blobs in RT2870 version 2009-08-20 and RT3070 version
>>> 2009-05-25 are all marked as version 17 (or 0.17), but *they all have
>>> different contents*.
>>>
>>> I attempted to maintain the same version selection logic when converting
>>> the staging drivers to use the firmware loader, since I assumed there
>>> was a good reason for it.
>>>
>>
>> As you can see in the ralink web[1] RT28XX/RT30XX USB devices (RT2870/RT2770/RT3572/RT3070)
>> need _only_ the rt2870.bin fw-file.
>>
>> And RT28XX/RT30XX PCI/mPCI/PCIe/CardBus devices
>> (RT2760/RT2790/RT2860/RT2890/RT3060/RT3062/RT3562/RT2860/RT2760/RT2890/RT2790/RT3090)
>> need _only_ the rt2860.bin fw-file.
>
> These files aren't used by the Ralink drivers.  So why should you
> believe the labels on them?
>
>>> linux-firmware is supposed to have all firmware files referenced by any
>>> version of Linux
>>
>> That's a good joke!
>> linux-firmware is *unmaintained* , a lot of firmwares are missing.
>
> linux-firmware is not *actively* maintained; it requires people to send
> submissions (repeatedly...).
>
>> Even the intel ones(microcode.dat, ipw2{1,2}*), zd1211, etc...
>
> I think there may be a problem with distribution of Intel Pro Wireless
> firmware because Intel requires users to accept a EULA.
>
>> Others are very old, really it's a mess.
>> Fedora puts _forty_ patches on top of linux-firmware.
>
> So help to make it better.

Agreed.

My experiences with linux-firmware are that they are justifiably particular 
about the license. My first attempt was with in-line firmware for the staging 
driver r8712u that had been distributed in a header file under GPL V2. That 
source compiled into a binary was not acceptible. After Realtek sent me their 
license that clearly gave the right to redistribute their firmware, my 
contribution was immediately accepted. I have since add 4 more Realtek firmware 
files under the same license. All were accepted without delay.

Larry

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

On 04/10/2011 11:03 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:

> These files aren't used by the Ralink drivers.  So why should you
> believe the labels on them?

Because the hardware manufacturer says that:
http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/pipermail/users_rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/2011-March/003380.html

Anyway, the firmware in staging(or ralink web) drivers look different because
they are different _versions_ of the _same_ firmware.

rt2870.bin: before 4096 bytes, now 8192 bytes.

> linux-firmware is not *actively* maintained; it requires people to send
> submissions (repeatedly...).

On 04/06/2010, *ONE YEAR AGO* , I sent a patch to rt2870.bin rt2860.bin.
It went to /dev/null

A similar patch was sent by the *driver maintainer* on 10/30/2010.
It went to /dev/null

The same patch was sent by the *hardware manufacturer* on 03/11/2011
It went to /dev/null

Torvalds, Mozart and God are pending.

> I think there may be a problem with distribution of Intel Pro Wireless
> firmware because Intel requires users to accept a EULA.

If it's included in Fedora then there are zero issues with licenses.

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Larry Finger]

On 04/10/2011 04:46 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 04/10/2011 11:03 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> These files aren't used by the Ralink drivers.  So why should you
>> believe the labels on them?
>
> Because the hardware manufacturer says that:
> http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/pipermail/users_rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/2011-March/003380.html
>
> Anyway, the firmware in staging(or ralink web) drivers look different because
> they are different _versions_ of the _same_ firmware.
>
> rt2870.bin: before 4096 bytes, now 8192 bytes.
>
>> linux-firmware is not *actively* maintained; it requires people to send
>> submissions (repeatedly...).
>
> On 04/06/2010, *ONE YEAR AGO* , I sent a patch to rt2870.bin rt2860.bin.
> It went to /dev/null
>
> A similar patch was sent by the *driver maintainer* on 10/30/2010.
> It went to /dev/null
>
> The same patch was sent by the *hardware manufacturer* on 03/11/2011
> It went to /dev/null
>
> Torvalds, Mozart and God are pending.
>
>> I think there may be a problem with distribution of Intel Pro Wireless
>> firmware because Intel requires users to accept a EULA.
>
> If it's included in Fedora then there are zero issues with licenses.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Do you still have the patch from one year ago? I would like to see what you 
proposed in changes to WHENCE.

Larry

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

On 04/11/2011 12:37 AM, Larry Finger wrote:

> Do you still have the patch from one year ago? I would like to see what you proposed in changes to WHENCE.

Déjà vu

me: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=129798073407070&w=2

ivo: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=128844402626603&w=2

ralink: http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/pipermail/users_rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/2011-March/003381.html
        http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/pipermail/users_rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/2011-March/003382.html

Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Larry Finger]

On 04/10/2011 05:56 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 12:37 AM, Larry Finger wrote:
>
>> Do you still have the patch from one year ago? I would like to see what you proposed in changes to WHENCE.
>
> Déjà vu
>
> me: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=129798073407070&w=2
>
> ivo: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=128844402626603&w=2
>
> ralink: http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/pipermail/users_rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/2011-March/003381.html
>          http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/pipermail/users_rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/2011-March/003382.html

I still don't see any problem with the patch that you supplied. The contribution 
from Ivo and Ralink did not update WHENCE.

I pulled the binary files from the Ralink submission and have entered them into 
my copy of linux-firmware. I need to test that 2860.bin will work with my 
RT3090. Do you have a device that uses rt2800usb?

Larry