From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-by2nam03on0059.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.42.59]:53193 "EHLO NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751774AbcKWRJt (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:09:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] qtn: add FullMAC firmware for Quantenna QSR10G wifi device To: Kalle Valo References: <1478700000-11624-1-git-send-email-igor.mitsyanko.os@quantenna.com> <1478706966.18306.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <2fcb5f28-808e-f296-7e91-e5185e7577c9@quantenna.com> <1478725543.21403.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1478864146.4129.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> <87d1hmnrqj.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> CC: Johannes Berg , , , , , , Igor Mitsyanko , Kamlesh Rath , Sergey Matyukevich , Avinash Patil , Ben Hutchings , Kyle McMartin From: IgorMitsyanko Message-ID: (sfid-20161123_180953_552746_B92B1BED) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:09:32 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87d1hmnrqj.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/23/2016 06:25 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > IgorMitsyanko writes: > >> To clarify with you and Kalle, as persons involved with >> linux-wireless: is my understanding correct that submitting firmware >> into linux-fimware repository is a prerequisite to accepting new >> driver into linux-wireless? > In my opinion the most important is that the device is usable with an > upstream driver so that anyone can start using the driver (if they have > the hardware). > >> There is an option to start Quantenna device from internal flash >> memory, no external binary files involved. If we will introduce this >> functionality and remove code handling external firmware for now >> (until firmware problem resolved), would that allow driver to be >> reviewed/accepted? > Do all the publically available hardware contain the firmware in > internal flash (flashed in the factory)? Or is this something which must > be installed separately for each board's internal flash by the user? Each board must have flash installed on it, preflashed in the factory with uboot and firmware binary, otherwise board won't boot (won't boot without uboot, firmware itself is not mandatory). Booting from flash is default behavior on boards that are currently on the market, but for developemnt purpuses it's not very convenient and harder to upgrade. > > BTW, the original mail with the firmware image didn't make it to the > list, I guess it was too big? It would be good if you could post the > license separately so that people can see it. > I resent the email without binary patch to linux-wireless. Yes, it was big, I guess next time we better use pull requests on github.