[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1216088636.27455.163.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:23:55 -0700
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: jeff@...zik.org, david@...g.hm, arjan@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.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.
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 19:17 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> When module support was added, guess what? I could still build a
> completely static kernel image like I always could.
>
> And in fact, to this day, that's what I personally do because that's
> how I like my kernels.
Good. You can still do precisely that, and build the firmware into your
kernel. You can have exactly what you like. Hey, you can build even
_more_ firmware into your kernel now. You can have NFS-root on devices
you previously had to use an initrd for. hth.
> But this request_firmware() change does not allow one to get what he
> could get before, which is a completely self-contained driver module
> object file.
>
> This is the difference between providing an option and making
> something mandatory. This firmware split up is now mandatory.
In all the years we've been using request_firmware(), nobody ever asked
for a way to build the firmware _into_ the .ko file, until now. Why is
it suddenly so important for a small handful of older network drivers,
when nobody else has ever seen the need for it -- even in modern network
drivers?
--
dwmw2
--
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