Re: request_firmware() hotplug interface, third round.

[Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>]

Am Freitag, 16. Mai 2003 20:49 schrieb Jean Tourrilhes:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:53:17PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > >  Hotpluggability is not required, it is the same for any module, which
> > >  gets loaded while the system is running. Drivers don't even need to be
> > >  aware of hotplug.
> >
> > In that case they can contain the firmware and mark it __init.
> > They need no RAM. They can even mark the code needed to put
> > firmware into the device as __init.
>
> 	I think you missed a lot of the previous discussion. Many high
> level kernel developpers (Jeff, Alan, Greg) have said 'niet' to binary
> firmware linked with the kernel (unless there is source code
> available). Please assume that all drivers currently including
> firmware blobs in the kernel will need fixing and therefore should not
> be taken as example.
> 	The threads :
> 		http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105222131600002&r=1&w=2
> 		http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105045487300002&r=1&w=2
> 		http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105181861200001&r=1&w=2
> 		http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105295022700002&r=1&w=2
> 		http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105302951900003&r=1&w=2
> 	Yes, that's a lot to read, but this will explain the full
> complexity of the situation.

It seems to be a whole lot of laywering not technical discussion IMHO.

> > An awful lot of overhead.
>
> 	It's not like we have a choice on this issue. The embedded
> people are already grumbling.

Please explain. Either firmware is in RAM or it is not.

	Regards
		Oliver