Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:20:43 -0700 | Subject | Re: request_firmware() backport to 2.4 | From | Jean Tourrilhes <> |
| |
Marcelo wrote : > On 1 Sep 2003, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > no, the bfubase.frm is the original firmware file from AVM. This file > > have to be placed somewhere on the filesystem. > > Right, and without placing the file somewhere on the filesystem bfusb > 2.4.22 users wont have 2.4.23 working without "issues".
But various high level kernel people, such as Jeff, have decided that binary firmwares *must* be removed from the kernel because of legal "issues" (GPL == source available). In 2.6.X, it seems that the tolerance towards this "issue" will end, so all those nasty details will have to work. Of course, 2.4.X is more "don't rock the boat".
Have fun...
Jean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ Marcelo wrote : > On 1 Sep 2003, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > no, the bfubase.frm is the original firmware file from AVM. This file > > have to be placed somewhere on the filesystem. > > Right, and without placing the file somewhere on the filesystem bfusb > 2.4.22 users wont have 2.4.23 working without "issues".
But various high level kernel people, such as Jeff, have decided that binary firmwares *must* be removed from the kernel because of legal "issues" (GPL == source available). In 2.6.X, it seems that the tolerance towards this "issue" will end, so all those nasty details will have to work. Of course, 2.4.X is more "don't rock the boat".
Have fun...
Jean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |