Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

[Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>]

[-- 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 outdated firmware in the linux-firmware tree only causes more problems.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 --]