From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751004AbWDQOiI (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:38:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751033AbWDQOiI (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:38:08 -0400 Received: from coyote.holtmann.net ([217.160.111.169]:9913 "EHLO mail.holtmann.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbWDQOiH (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:38:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] binary firmware and modules From: Marcel Holtmann To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: "John W. Linville" , Oliver Neukum , Jon Masters , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1145284193.2847.53.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <1145088656.23134.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200604151154.22787.oliver@neukum.org> <20060417142214.GI5042@tuxdriver.com> <1145284193.2847.53.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:38:12 +0200 Message-Id: <1145284692.26498.16.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Arjan, > > > compiled drivers need their firmware, too. Secondly, do all drivers > > > know at compile time which firmware they'll need? > > > > They have to know what they will request, do they not? > > in order to not fall in the naming-policy trap: do we need a translation > layer here? eg the module asks for firmware- > and userspace then somehow maps that to a full filename via a lookup > table? why do we need that? Currently it is not needed and I don't see a reason to make it more complicated. The important thing is to export the used firmware names to the userspace, because this piece of information is only stored inside the kernel source code right now. Regards Marcel