| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:39:54 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> CC: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jaswinder@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ip2: use request_firmware() Alan Cox wrote: >> Extracting the firmware: good >> >> Scattering a /single/ driver across multiple directories in the kernel >> tree: bad > > I'd equally argue that putting all the firmware in one place is more > logical than smearing it around the tree. Logical for whom? Drivers have always been self-contained... until now. This separation certainly does not make things _easier_ for users, our reason for existence. This separation certainly does not make it easier to drop in a driver with a firmware, i.e. not easier on driver developers. It is one more PITA detail when copying a driver from one kernel to another, or shipping the driver out of tree. There are good reasons why the Makefile rules, Kconfig rules, C source code and headers for a driver all live together... moving the firmware elsewhere is strangely, given that a driver simply /does not work/ without the firmware. I like the goal, but see little effort in the area of "make this transition painless for users." Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists