Hi Jon,
> > > actually it has never been really a filename. It was a simple pattern
> > > that the initial hotplug script and later the udev script mapped
> > > 1:1 to a filename on your filesystem. If you check the mailing list
> > > archives of LKML and linux-hotplug you will see that I always resisted
> > > in allowing drivers to include a directory path in that call. A couple
> > > of people tried this and it is not what it was meant to be.
>
> That's fine. I agree with the idea - *but* it strikes me that we don't
> really have a co-ordinated database of what module "patterns" map to
> what on-disk firmware, aside from hotplug/udev scripts. We need to
> co-ordinate this stuff a lot more. Or am I missing something? I'm happy
> to setup a database on the kerneltools.org wiki if that's useful...
that is true, but it is actually not a problem of the kernel and your
proposed MODULE_FIRMWARE patch. However it might be a good idea to start
something like this. It will also help to see what is actually needed.
> I'm trying to avoid the need to have lots of different places in
> userland needing to track firmware versioning. But on some level, I just
> need to know that a given driver is going to ask for 1 firmware with the
> ID of "foo" - and a way to extrapolate where it is on disk to package.
Let start collecting these information and then go from there.
Regards
Marcel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
