Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751049AbWH2CxM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:53:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751076AbWH2CxM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:53:12 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:60882 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751042AbWH2CxM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:53:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:49:01 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Oleg Verych Cc: James Bottomley , Sven Luther , debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s) Message-ID: <20060829024901.GA32426@kroah.com> References: <1156802900.3465.30.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <1156803102.3465.34.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <20060828230452.GA4393@powerlinux.fr> <44F38BCE.2080108@flower.upol.cz> <1156809344.3465.41.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <44F3A355.6090408@flower.upol.cz> <20060829015103.GA28162@kroah.com> <20060829031430.GA9820@flower.upol.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060829031430.GA9820@flower.upol.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1892 Lines: 43 On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 05:14:30AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:51:03PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 04:15:49AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > > > >>request_firmware() is dead also. > > > >>YMMV, but three years, and there are still big chunks of binary in kernel. > > > >>And please don't add new useless info _in_ it. > > > Hell, what can be as easy as this: > > > ,- > > > |modprobe $drv > > > |(dd /dev/blobs && echo OK) || echo Error > > > `- > > > where /dev/blobs is similar to /dev/port or even /dev/null char device. > > > if synchronization is needed, add `echo $drv >/dev/blobs`, remove modprobe, > > > > I don't see such code in the kernel at this time. So it's not a > > solution, sorry. > > > I know. return -ENOPATCH Yes, and that's the only way to make changes in the kernel, sorry. > I'm nether a CS nor software engineer, just wondering why simple thing isn't > simple _in_ the Kernel. I'm reading list "just for fun (C)" and any good word > about this (IMHO) unix-way design *may* lead professional programmers to do > tiny worthy things (think about kevent discussion). > If it's (i'm) stupid, please, say so (in the way Nicholas Miell did ;). I don't think it's workable, and goes against the current way the kernel does things. But please, feel free to prove me wrong with a patch otherwise. I don't want to debate it otherwise. I think the current way we handle firmware works quite well, especially given the wide range of different devices that it works for (everything from BIOS upgrades to different wireless driver stages). thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/