Re: Firmware files for Ralink RT28x0

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

[-- 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 --]