Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] binary firmware and modules | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:29:53 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 10:22 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 11:54:22AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Samstag, 15. April 2006 10:10 schrieb Jon Masters: > > > The attached patch introduces MODULE_FIRMWARE as one way of advertising > > > Strictly speaking, what is the connection with modules? Statically > > The same as MODULE_AUTHOR, MODULE_LICENSE, etc. The divide is more > logical than physical. > > > compiled drivers need their firmware, too. Secondly, do all drivers > > know at compile time which firmware they'll need? > > They have to know what they will request, do they not?
in order to not fall in the naming-policy trap: do we need a translation layer here? eg the module asks for firmware-<modulename> and userspace then somehow maps that to a full filename via a lookup table?
- 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/
| |