From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBBDC49EA6 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E16C613C2 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231655AbhFXQoW (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:44:22 -0400 Received: from so254-9.mailgun.net ([198.61.254.9]:28063 "EHLO so254-9.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229721AbhFXQoV (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:44:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1624552922; h=Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: References: Subject: Cc: To: From: Sender; bh=p4AyN0IckVIgEF0pepUMRnDVIZkiIMMxD6qEertwOF4=; b=aUeC/jkd+iOg4YV17OEz2u7T8JSeSiziwB1zUQR/13M0f/ejda3FpZhw4SotLH+/hywe7ANk DccOmu6Xen4UpH2Qdnji0aYpOt+P0mga+3KpIHGJ7XpUtd9lhSbEBOBzHCq/bUyL1UyT5Eec vcj1BazDGukzZ9HZPLUvnKQN/2g= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 198.61.254.9 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI0MWYwYSIsICJsaW51eC1rZXJuZWxAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n04.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 60d4b54c0090905e166fdc9c (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:39:40 GMT Sender: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3F4A6C43146; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tynnyri.adurom.net (tynnyri.adurom.net [51.15.11.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19ED2C433D3; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:39:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 19ED2C433D3 Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Mikhail Rudenko Cc: Arend van Spriel , Arend van Spriel , Franky Lin , Hante Meuleman , Chi-hsien Lin , Wright Feng , Chung-hsien Hsu , Kalle Valo , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Dmitry Osipenko , Double Lo , Remi Depommier , Amar Shankar , Saravanan Shanmugham , Frank Kao , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com, SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@infineon.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: use separate firmware for 43430 revision 2 References: <20210509233010.2477973-1-mike.rudenko@gmail.com> <87a6oxpsn8.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:39:31 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87a6oxpsn8.fsf@gmail.com> (Mikhail Rudenko's message of "Fri, 14 May 2021 12:41:08 +0300") Message-ID: <87o8bvgqt8.fsf@tynnyri.adurom.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mikhail Rudenko writes: > On 2021-05-10 at 11:06 MSK, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 5/10/2021 1:30 AM, Mikhail Rudenko wrote: >>> A separate firmware is needed for Broadcom 43430 revision 2. This >>> chip can be found in e.g. certain revisions of Ampak AP6212 wireless >>> IC. Original firmware file from IC vendor is named >>> 'fw_bcm43436b0.bin', but brcmfmac and also btbcm drivers report chip >> >> That is bad naming. There already is a 43436 USB device. >> >>> id 43430, so requested firmware file name is >>> 'brcmfmac43430b0-sdio.bin' in line with other 43430 revisions. >> >> As always there is the question about who will be publishing this >> particular firmware file to linux-firmware. > > The above mentioned file can be easily found by web search. Also, the > corresponding patch for the bluetooth part has just been accepted > [1]. Is it strictly necessary to have firmware file in linux-firmware in > order to have this patch accepted? This patch is a bit in the gray area. We have a rule that firmware images should be in linux-firmware, but as the vendor won't submit one and I assume the license doesn't approve the community submit it either, there is not really any solution for the firmware problem. On the other hand some community members have access to the firmware somehow so this patch is useful to the community, and I think taking an exception to the rule in this case is justified. So I am inclined towards applying the patch. Thoughts? I also have another similar patch in the queue: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20210307113550.7720-1-konrad.dybcio@somainline.org/ -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches