Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RFC: Moving firmware blobs out of the kernel. | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Fri, 30 May 2008 00:18:11 +0300 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 15:12 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > I like your idea, all the way to the point where you actually remove the > firmware file from the kernel tree :)
I've been careful to ensure that what I'm doing is a benefit even without that final step. But I still think that final step is useful too.
> If the firmware has a compatible license and is required for critical > operations like booting the machine, built-in firmware should remain an > option.
Well, 'compatible licence' is a loaded question. It takes a fairly wilful misinterpretation of 'mere aggregation', IMHO, to see what we're currently doing as legal -- but I was trying to avoid that discussion since it tends to devolve into name-calling and nobody's _actually_ right until/unless it's decided by a court.
But sticking to the technical side -- with what I have now, it's _easier_ to build external firmware into the kernel than it was before. My original testing was done with a kernel with the libertas 'usb8388.bin' firmware built in to it, for example. That was never possible before.
Having firmware files in a separate tarball doesn't prevent you from building them into your vmlinux if you want to. And there are some companies who wouldn't allow their firmware to be distributed in the kernel source tree because it's under GPL, but _would_ consider putting it in a separate 'kernel-firmware' repository instead. So this should _also_ mean we can ship more firmware, more easily.
Hell, with git submodules you almost don't need to notice the difference, do you? Just check out kernel-firmware as a subdirectory of the source tree (or point CONFIG_BUILTIN_FIRMWARE_DIR at wherever you _did_ check it out), and you're done.
> For certain embedded cases, I could certainly see that > in-kernel firmware being the best method for firmware distribution, for > both $Platform's users and $Platform's developers.
It is not my intention to remove that possibility. I believe I have made it _more_ feasible; not less.
-- dwmw2
| |