From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754989AbYGEGGd (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jul 2008 02:06:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752597AbYGEGGX (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jul 2008 02:06:23 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:51431 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752232AbYGEGGW (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jul 2008 02:06:22 -0400 Message-ID: <486F0F44.4000902@garzik.org> Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:05:56 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, dwmw2@infradead.org, andi@firstfloor.org, tytso@mit.edu, hugh@veritas.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, mchan@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" References: <1215178035.10393.763.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <486E2818.1060003@garzik.org> <20080704142753.27848ff8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20080704.134329.209642254.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20080704.134329.209642254.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.2.4 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.3 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > External firmware is by design an error prone system, even with > versioning. But by being built and linked into the driver, it > is fool proof. > > On a technical basis alone, we would never disconnect a crucial > component such as firmware, from the driver. The only thing > charging these transoformations, from day one, is legal concerns. > > I've been against request_firmware() from the beginning, because > they make life unnecessarily difficult, and it is error prone no > matter how well you design the validation step. Precisely. External firmware is quite simply less error prone, since it is always with the driver code that uses it. No other system can approach that reliability. But I did (and do) think request_firmware() is a necessary piece of the puzzle. Personally I've always felt it is a design choice by the individual driver author, whether to compile-in firmware or use external firmware. Jeff