[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin"
    On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 15:31 -0400, wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:56:02 BST, David Woodhouse said:
    > > They had to 'make oldconfig' and then actually _choose_ to say 'no' to
    > > an option which is fairly clearly documented, that they are the
    > > relatively unusual position of wanting to have said 'yes' to. You're
    > > getting into Aunt Tillie territory, when you complain about that.
    > Note that some of us chose 'no' because we *thought* that we already *had*
    > everything in /lib/firmware that we needed (in my case, the iwl3945 wireless
    > firmware and the Intel cpu microcode). The first that I realized that
    > the tg3 *had* firmware was when I saw the failure message, because before
    > that, the binary blob was inside the kernel. And then, it wasn't trivially
    > obvious how to get firmware loaded if the tg3 driver was builtin rather
    > than a module.
    > And based on some of the other people who apparently got bit by this same
    > exact behavior change on this same exact "builtin but no firmware in kernel"
    > config with this same exact driver, it's obvious that one of two things is true:
    > 1) Several of the highest-up maintainers are Aunt Tillies.
    > or
    > 2) This is sufficiently subtle and complicated that far more experienced
    > people than Aunt Tillie will Get It Very Wrong.

    Not really. It's just a transitional thing. As you said, you know
    perfectly well that modern Linux drivers like iwl3945 handle their
    firmware separately through request_firmware() rather than including it
    in unswappable memory in the static kernel. We're just updating some of
    the older drivers to match.

    I've often managed to configure a kernel which doesn't boot, when I've
    updated and not paid attention to the questions which 'oldconfig' asks
    me. It's fairly easy to do. But I don't advocate that 'allyesconfig'
    should be the default, just in case someone needs one of the options...

    But as I said, I'm content to let Linus make that decision. In the
    meantime, I'd prefer to get back to the simple business of updating
    drivers to use request_firmware() as they should, and have maintainers
    actually respond to the _patches_ rather than refusing to even look at
    the code changes because they disagree with the default setting for the


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-03 21:51    [W:0.037 / U:10.256 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site