linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH linux-firmware] isci: Add firmware blob and sources

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:04:50 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Intel SCU Linux support <intel-linux-scu@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH linux-firmware] isci: Add firmware blob and sources

On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 16:15 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 10:59 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
> >> > ---
> >> > I'm a bit unclear on the purpose and use of isci_firmware.bin.  Is it
> >> > needed for production hardware?
> >>
> >> It's a stop gap for platforms with missing or broken oem parameters.
> >> It is meant to become vestigial once the platform revisions quiet
> >> down.
> >>
> >> > Does it need to be customised
> >> > per-system, or are module parameters sufficient for that?  (If not, why
> >> > isn't it built into the driver?)
> >>
> >> It is customized per system to meet EMI and signal integrity targets
> >> of a given platform.
> >
> > Given this, does it make sense to distribute a binary at all?
> >
> 
> It defaults to something that is reasonable for a reference platform
> and if you end up needing to customize it is easier to distribute a
> new binary then move all these settings to module parameters.  That
> said, the intent was to start using WARN_TAINT_ONCE() if it ever got
> used and phase it out once the platform support stabilized.  It was
> certainly convenient to have it in the same tree in the early days of
> the driver.  Its use should be waning now.

I have now applied and pushed this addition to linux-firmware.git.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)