From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: ipw2100: firmware problem Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:49:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20050608194902.GK876@redhat.com> References: <20050608142310.GA2339@elf.ucw.cz> <200506081744.20687.vda@ilport.com.ua> <42A7268D.9020402@linux.intel.com> <20050608.124332.85408883.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jketreno@linux.intel.com, vda@ilport.com.ua, pavel@ucw.cz, jgarzik@pobox.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ipw2100-admin@linux.intel.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050608.124332.85408883.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:43:32PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > I am likely to always take the position that device firmware > belongs in the kernel proper, not via these userland and filesystem > loading mechanism, none of which may be even _available_ when > we first need to get the device going. FWIW, I agree, though the licensing of the Intel firmware prevents that iirc. The biggest problem I face with this driver in Fedora kernels is users mismatching firmware rev with the driver version. Another problem that disappears if the two are shipped together. Of course this would then bring out the armchair lawyers on the list and cause another 500 emails debating whether it violates the gpl. Dave