[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487CD7FE.9010209@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:01:50 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: david@...g.hm, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel,
use it in more drivers.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> A more complex, multi-file inter-dependent system is more reliable than a
>> single-file driver with built-in firmware, doing the same thing?
>
> I'm not interested in your made-up arguments.
It's a simple question... you claimed A was more reliable than B, even
though A is a more complex system than B.
I'm curious how that works, especially given that you have claimed the
_exact opposite_ in years past, by pointing out how firmware separation
could mean no-boot.
> Please just build everything statically. Don't use modules. They are
> clearly too complex for you, adn everybody is happy.
Can't you make a simple, objective, technical comparison between two
systems?
firmware-outside-driver has more utility and flexibility, but more
things can go wrong, like driver present/firmware absent case that
happens every day with today's wireless drivers.
firmware-inside-driver guarantees without _any_ doubt that the firmware
is present, if the driver is guarantee. There is no guarantee more
solid than that.
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