linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] brcmfmac: Use separate struct to declare firmware names for Apple OTP chips

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

Message-ID: <89F492BA-38A9-4D2F-AD57-AFD8856363A4@live.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jan 2023 15:24:43 +0000
From:   Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@...e.com>
To:     Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
CC:     "aspriel@...il.com" <aspriel@...il.com>,
        "hante.meuleman@...adcom.com" <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
        "kvalo@...nel.org" <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "lina@...hilina.net" <lina@...hilina.net>,
        "franky.lin@...adcom.com" <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
        Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        Orlando Chamberlain <redecorating@...tonmail.com>,
        "brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com" <brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com>,
        "brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com" 
        <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Asahi Linux <asahi@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] brcmfmac: Use separate struct to declare firmware
 names for Apple OTP chips


> I think my reply to Arend flew over your head.

Sorry. I am not that good in English so sometimes do misinterpret things.
> 
> My point was that I'd rather have the Broadcom/Cypress people actually
> answer my question so we can figure out how to do this *properly*,
> instead of doing "safer-but-dumb" things (like this patch) because we
> just don't have the information to do it properly.
> 
> - Hector