From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hayeswang Subject: RE: [linux-firmware v2 1/2] rtl_nic: update firmware forRTL8111E-VL Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:41:08 +0800 Message-ID: <9DEF5678E5044F80AEBAD3FE738EA980@realtek.com.tw> References: <1312978979-1808-1-git-send-email-hayeswang@realtek.com> <1312980860.2591.1267.camel@deadeye> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , To: 'Ben Hutchings' Return-path: Received: from rtits2.realtek.com ([60.250.210.242]:33810 "EHLO rtits2.realtek.com.tw" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751910Ab1HKDle (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:41:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1312980860.2591.1267.camel@deadeye> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:ben@decadent.org.uk] > > +File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw (Version: rtl8168e-3_0.0.1) > [...] > > Please don't write the version in yet another way. It should be: > I just think if someone replaces the firmware with another one, I could check the firmware through the information without checking the ram data. For example, someone renames the rtl8168f-1.fw to rtl8168e-3.fw and replaces the original rtl8168e-3.fw. Through ethtool to show the version of the firmware, I could know the firmware is invalid. If the version only contain the value 0.0.1, I must compare the binary file to find out the result. Do you think it is unnecessary to add this information? I could remove the relative part if you think so. > File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw > Version: 0.0.1 > > Or, if you insist on duplicating the name in the version: > > File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw > Version: rtl8168e-3_0.0.1 > Best Regards, Hayes