From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Meelis Roos Subject: Re: Fore 200 firmware Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:52:23 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: References: <201006011437.o51Ebp6f014332@thirdoffive.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: chas3@users.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from smtp2.it.da.ut.ee ([193.40.5.67]:48410 "EHLO smtp2.it.da.ut.ee" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756364Ab0FAOwZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:52:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201006011437.o51Ebp6f014332@thirdoffive.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > >So the current state is that drivers/atm contains the C dump of fore 200 > >firmware in drivers/atm/fore200e_pca_fw.c but this firmware is not built > >and not installed by make install. It's also not present in > >linux-firware tree/packages so the fore driver can not load its firmware > >from anywhere. I guess this is not the intended outcome. > > this firmware is in the linux-atm source tree now. the 2.5.1 release > should have the firmware. 2.5.1 does not seem to contain the firmware. Even if it will be there in the next release, we should still do something to distribute it to the user so that any modern distro has the firmware available (in linux-firmware or via similar means) so the user does not have to redo the detective work I am doing. Packaging it along with linux-atm packages (atm-tools in Debian) does not seem correct, so do we need to make a special firmware package out of it or just add to some other firmware repo that is packaged already? What's the licence of the firmware anyway - unknown likely? And we can probably remove drivers/atm/fore200e_pca_fw.c if we distribute the firmware out of kernel tree. -- Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)