From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750741AbWDSN27 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750739AbWDSN27 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:59 -0400 Received: from rtr.ca ([64.26.128.89]:60370 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750744AbWDSN26 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:58 -0400 Message-ID: <44463B11.6030005@rtr.ca> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:49 -0400 From: Mark Lord User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: Duncan Sands , Jon Masters , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [RFC] binary firmware and modules References: <1145088656.23134.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200604181537.47183.duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr> <1145370171.10255.58.camel@localhost> <200604181659.04657.duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr> <1145374878.10255.69.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1145374878.10255.69.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Marcel Holtmann wrote: .. > I personally prefer full firmware names. This makes the dependency easy > and even an end user can call modinfo and see what firmware is expected > by a certain driver (without looking at the source code). How does one handle the case of updated firmware from the manufacturer, which requires *no* driver changes? If the driver has all of the previously known names/versions hardcoded, then would it refuse to use the new stuff? I'm probably misunderstanding something here.