Message-ID: <46B43DBA.5040703@urjc.es>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:50:02 +0200
From: Javier Pello <javier.pello@urjc.es>
Organization: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070503)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: david@lang.hm
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] request_firmware: skip timeout if userspace was not 
	notified
References: <46B37CF7.2020803@urjc.es> 
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0708032219230.6905@asgard.lang.hm>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708032219230.6905@asgard.lang.hm>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1161
Lines: 23

> I've been told that it's possible to have the kernel pull the firmware
> off of an initrd (or was it initramfs, I keep confusing the two) without
> having any userspace, just put the right file in the right place
> (unfortunantly I've never gotten around to testing this) will this patch
> break this feature?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the way this works is having
the initramfs become an "early userspace", a filesystem that is mounted,
well, earlier during boot, so that it is available before drivers begin
to initialise (earlier: as a rootfs_initcall, as opposed to at the end of
the boot process), but that in all respects behaves as a fully-fledged root
filesystem. In particular, firmware should be requested from userspace in
the standard way, and the patch should not break anything. I would test
this to be sure, but I have absolutely no experience preparing an initramfs.

Javier


-
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/