Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:32:50 +0200 | From | Rene Herman <> | Subject | Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel, use it in more drivers. |
| |
On 15-07-08 04:24, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:23:14 +0200 > >> On 15-07-08 03:52, David Miller wrote: >> >>> From: david@lang.hm Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:51:37 -0700 (PDT) >>> >>>> I agree with this, but the proponents of the seperate firmware are >>>> listing the fact that the firmware doesn't tie up ram as one of the >>>> big reasons for making the change. >>> Exactly. >>> >>> Otherwise these firmware changes are utterly pointless. >> The point of them is legal. > > Thanks for proving something I tried to establish for weeks > but which Alan Cox, David W., and others vehemently denied. > > They states that it was being done on a technical basis rather > than being predominantly a legal one.
Yes, they were obstinate or dishonest (I won't say "respectively"). As to "proving" though, I cannot prove anything, being a mere observer.
At this point I really believe this discussion should be about the other part of my reply -- the point mostly put forward by Jef Garzik about the firmware inside the module image. Without that ability, I don't believe these are good patches.
_With_ that ability, I myself do. Let's allow allow everyone their own level of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Rene
| |