Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755341AbYGHHKu (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:10:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751453AbYGHHKk (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:10:40 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:49018 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751394AbYGHHKk (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:10:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:36:37 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: David Miller Cc: jeff@garzik.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, andi@firstfloor.org, tytso@mit.edu, hugh@veritas.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, mchan@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" Message-ID: <20080708073637.32037c76@the-village.bc.nu> In-Reply-To: <20080707.145819.209342070.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080707214218.055bcb35@the-village.bc.nu> <20080707.144505.67398603.davem@davemloft.net> <20080707221427.163c4a30@the-village.bc.nu> <20080707.145819.209342070.davem@davemloft.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1194 Lines: 31 > That's pure bullox as far as I can see. Why provide the means to > do something nobody has had a need for in 6+ years? Who needs > to load different firmware for the tg3 driver? Who needs modules, nobody needed it for years ... you are repeating historically failed arguments still. > Who needs that capability? Distribution vendors? What for? > In what case will they need to load different firmware from > what the driver maintainer tested as a unit? For some drivers yes. Maybe not tg3. > And, btw, who has the right to enforce this new burdon upon driver > maintainers when they have had a working and maintainable system for > so long? The module argument again - see my comment about the sound driver history. > I can only see it being about separation, pure and simple. Separation - of firmware that can be paged from code that cannot. Of stuff that doesn't change from stuff that does. That happens to be good engineering. Alan -- 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/