[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <486F0F44.4000902@garzik.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:05:56 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, dwmw2@...radead.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
tytso@....edu, hugh@...itas.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, mchan@...adcom.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin"
David Miller wrote:
> External firmware is by design an error prone system, even with
> versioning. But by being built and linked into the driver, it
> is fool proof.
>
> On a technical basis alone, we would never disconnect a crucial
> component such as firmware, from the driver. The only thing
> charging these transoformations, from day one, is legal concerns.
>
> I've been against request_firmware() from the beginning, because
> they make life unnecessarily difficult, and it is error prone no
> matter how well you design the validation step.
Precisely. External firmware is quite simply less error prone, since it
is always with the driver code that uses it. No other system can
approach that reliability.
But I did (and do) think request_firmware() is a necessary piece of the
puzzle. Personally I've always felt it is a design choice by the
individual driver author, whether to compile-in firmware or use external
firmware.
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