staging:brcm80211:brcmfmac:change firmware/config file name
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): FD96C117992C584DBC47231B1EB6F5568206D859DC@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
(Adding linux-wireless for input on firmware naming best practices.)
Quoted 29 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 9 lines · Henry Ptasinski
Quoted 8 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 6 lines · Nohee Ko
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Have you made the same changes in the linux-firmware source tree as well? Without changing it there, this could get messy. <<
No not yet. But we are planning sooner or later.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Please do it sooner.
I'll wait for that to happen before committing this patch.
There's no specific changes needed in the linux-firmware repo to work with this driver change. There is a bugfix version of the firmware that we're getting ready to send up, which is the motivation for this change, but the change will work properly with the firmware that's in the repo today.
How, you just renamed the file you look for in the driver, right?
Quoted 8 lines
All this change does is replace the hard-coded full firmware filename used in the driver with the basename-apiversion construction as documented in
http://www.linuxwireless.org/en/developers/Documentation/firmware-versioning
plus add some info to the README to help users get the firmware properly installed.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Users will need to create the symlinks as described in the README to use these driver changes.
Yes, so you just broke their working setup, right?
So, please get linux-firmware fixed to add the proper symlinks, and then I can apply the patch, and say "go upgrade your linux-firmware package", which is almost acceptable.
Ah, I didn't realize we should have the symlinks in the linux-firmware repo. We didn't do that for the brcm80211 driver (same instructions to create symlinks by hand are in the README for that driver), and nobody pointed it out as being an issue.
But I note that the linux-firmware repo doesn't contain any symlinks, and I'm having trouble finding any other driver that's using this approach. It looks like everybody is either just doing some variant of basename-apiversion, or hardcoding the complete firmware name (with codeversion) in theer driver.
Should we just punt on the codeversion portion? Thoughts?
Thanks,
- Henry
Quoted 46 lines · Henry Ptasinski
(Adding linux-wireless for input on firmware naming best practices.)
Quoted 29 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 9 lines · Henry Ptasinski
Quoted 8 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 6 lines · Nohee Ko
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Have you made the same changes in the linux-firmware source tree as well? Without changing it there, this could get messy. <<
No not yet. But we are planning sooner or later.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Please do it sooner.
I'll wait for that to happen before committing this patch.
There's no specific changes needed in the linux-firmware repo to work with this driver change. There is a bugfix version of the firmware that we're getting ready to send up, which is the motivation for this change, but the change will work properly with the firmware that's in the repo today.
How, you just renamed the file you look for in the driver, right?
Quoted 8 lines
All this change does is replace the hard-coded full firmware filename used in the driver with the basename-apiversion construction as documented in
http://www.linuxwireless.org/en/developers/Documentation/firmware-versioning
plus add some info to the README to help users get the firmware properly installed.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Users will need to create the symlinks as described in the README to use these driver changes.
Yes, so you just broke their working setup, right?
So, please get linux-firmware fixed to add the proper symlinks, and then I can apply the patch, and say "go upgrade your linux-firmware package", which is almost acceptable.
Ah, I didn't realize we should have the symlinks in the linux-firmware repo. We didn't do that for the brcm80211 driver (same instructions to create symlinks by hand are in the README for that driver), and nobody pointed it out as being an issue.
Quoted 6 lines
But I note that the linux-firmware repo doesn't contain any symlinks, and I'm having trouble finding any other driver that's using this approach. It looks like everybody is either just doing some variant of basename-apiversion, or hardcoding the complete firmware name (with codeversion) in theer driver.
Should we just punt on the codeversion portion? Thoughts?
punt, as no one else has done this :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Henry: do I need to put some specific word in thread's name to have you read my message? You seem to be active here but ignoring my other questions/request.
Sorry others for interrupting here, but I do not see other way of getting in touch with Henry.
Signature · 1 line
Rafał
Quoted 29 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 9 lines · Henry Ptasinski
Quoted 8 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 6 lines · Nohee Ko
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Have you made the same changes in the linux-firmware source tree as well? Without changing it there, this could get messy. <<
No not yet. But we are planning sooner or later.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Please do it sooner.
I'll wait for that to happen before committing this patch.
There's no specific changes needed in the linux-firmware repo to work with this driver change. There is a bugfix version of the firmware that we're getting ready to send up, which is the motivation for this change, but the change will work properly with the firmware that's in the repo today.
How, you just renamed the file you look for in the driver, right?
Quoted 8 lines
All this change does is replace the hard-coded full firmware filename used in the driver with the basename-apiversion construction as documented in
http://www.linuxwireless.org/en/developers/Documentation/firmware-versioning
plus add some info to the README to help users get the firmware properly installed.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Users will need to create the symlinks as described in the README to use these driver changes.
Yes, so you just broke their working setup, right?
So, please get linux-firmware fixed to add the proper symlinks, and then I can apply the patch, and say "go upgrade your linux-firmware package", which is almost acceptable.
Ah, I didn't catch that the symlink should be in the linux-firmware repo. We didn't do that for the brcm80211 driver firmware either, and nobody pointed it out.
But I don't see any symlinks in the linux-firmware repo. Is anybody else using the "best practices" as documented? Or should we just punt the codeversion part of the filenames and the symlinks, and just use basename-apiversion?
Thanks,
- Henry
PATCH 1/1 linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
In reply to a message not in the archiveDavid,
Here's a patch to rename our firmware files in the linux-firmware repo. I'll be sending a complimentary patch to Greg for staging-next-2.6 shortly.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Rename the firmware files using just basename-apiversion.
--- brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.bin | Bin 269595 -> 0 bytes brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt | 94 ---------------------------------- brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin | Bin 0 -> 269595 bytes brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ brcm/bcm43xx-0-610-809-0.fw | Bin 97376 -> 0 bytes brcm/bcm43xx-0.fw | Bin 0 -> 97376 bytes brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0-610-809-0.fw | Bin 180 -> 0 bytes brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw | Bin 0 -> 180 bytes 8 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.bin delete mode 100644 brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt create mode 100644 brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin create mode 100644 brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt delete mode 100644 brcm/bcm43xx-0-610-809-0.fw create mode 100644 brcm/bcm43xx-0.fw delete mode 100644 brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0-610-809-0.fw create mode 100644 brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw
brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.bin deleted binary +0 -0
brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt deleted +0 -94
94 lines not on this page · raw message
brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin new file binary +0 -0
brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt new file +94 -0
94 lines not on this page · raw message
brcm/bcm43xx-0-610-809-0.fw deleted binary +0 -0
brcm/bcm43xx-0.fw new file binary +0 -0
brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0-610-809-0.fw deleted binary +0 -0
brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw new file binary +0 -0
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1
Re: [PATCH] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
Quoted 6 lines · Henry Ptasinski
Here's a patch to rename our firmware files in the linux-firmware repo. I'll be sending a complimentary patch to Greg for staging-next-2.6 shortly.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Rename the firmware files using just basename-apiversion.
Please use the '-M' option to git diff (or whatever you're using) to make it detect renames -- the resulting patch would be a lot shorter.
And also please ensure the filenames listed in the WHENCE file are all correct. You don't seem to have fixed those to reflect your changes. And in fact I think the WHENCE file is *already* listing the bcm4329 files in the wrong directory?
Signature · 1 line
dwmw2
PATCH v2 1/1 linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. Also, fixed WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files.
---
WHENCE | 8 ++++----
...llmac-4-218-248-5.bin => bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin} | Bin 269595 -> 269595 bytes
...llmac-4-218-248-5.txt => bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt} | 0
brcm/{bcm43xx-0-610-809-0.fw => bcm43xx-0.fw} | Bin 97376 -> 97376 bytes
...bcm43xx_hdr-0-610-809-0.fw => bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw} | Bin 180 -> 180 bytes
5 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
rename brcm/{bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.bin => bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin} (100%)
rename brcm/{bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt => bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt} (100%)
rename brcm/{bcm43xx-0-610-809-0.fw => bcm43xx-0.fw} (100%)
rename brcm/{bcm43xx_hdr-0-610-809-0.fw => bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw} (100%)WHENCE +4 -4
@@ -1392,8 +1392,8 @@ Licence: Driver: brcm80211 - Broadcom 802.11n wireless LAN driver. -File: brcm/bcm43xx-0-610-809-0.fw -File: brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0-610-809-0.fw +File: brcm/bcm43xx-0.fw +File: brcm/bcm43xx_hdr-0.fw Licence: Redistributable. See LICENCE.broadcom_bcm43xx for details.
@@ -1401,8 +1401,8 @@ Licence: Redistributable. See LICENCE.broadcom_bcm43xx for details. Driver: brcm80211 - Broadcom 802.11n wireless LAN driver. -File: bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.bin -File: bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt +File: brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin +File: brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt Licence: Redistributable. See LICENCE.broadcom_bcm43xx for details.
brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt renamed from brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt +0 -0
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1
Re: [PATCH v2] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>:
Quoted 8 lines
Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. Also, fixed WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files.
Signed-off-by Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>
Henry, I believe we got report that Red Hat can not include your firmware anyway because of licensing. Can you change license to some common one which allows providing your firmware with distributions?
Signature · 1 line
Rafał
Re: [PATCH v2] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
Quoted 8 lines · Rafał Miłecki
2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>:
Quoted 7 lines
Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. Also, fixed WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>Henry, I believe we got report that Red Hat can not include your firmware anyway because of licensing. Can you change license to some common one which allows providing your firmware with distributions?
That's news to me, what specific licensing issue have you heard about here? Last I saw, the issues were resolved and everyone could redistribute this firmware.
Do you have a bugzilla number?
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v2] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
Quoted 18 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 8 lines · Rafał Miłecki
2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>:
Quoted 7 lines
Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. Also, fixed WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>Henry, I believe we got report that Red Hat can not include your firmware anyway because of licensing. Can you change license to some common one which allows providing your firmware with distributions?
That's news to me, what specific licensing issue have you heard about here? Last I saw, the issues were resolved and everyone could redistribute this firmware.
Quoted 4 lines · Dan Williams
There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed.
I'm not sure that translates to "can not include your firmware". Regardless, I am trying to get our license simplified. Obviously that's taking some time, and I don't have any resolution yet, but I'll keep working on it.
- Henry
Re: [PATCH v2] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
2010/12/9 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>:
Quoted 22 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 11 lines · Rafał Miłecki
Quoted 10 lines
2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>:
Quoted 8 lines
Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. Also, fixed WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files.
Signed-off-by Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Henry, I believe we got report that Red Hat can not include your firmware anyway because of licensing. Can you change license to some common one which allows providing your firmware with distributions?
That's news to me, what specific licensing issue have you heard about here? Last I saw, the issues were resolved and everyone could redistribute this firmware.
On a thread about other firmware, Dan Williams wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed.
I'm not sure that translates to "can not include your firmware". Regardless, I am trying to get our license simplified. Obviously that's taking some time, and I don't have any resolution yet, but I'll keep working on it.
You quoted just a selected part of Dan's message. Earlier he mentioned about Fedora's problems (sorry, I misremembered distro)
---------- Wiadomość przekazana dalej ----------
Od: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Data: 21 października 2010 17:21
Temat: Re: Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware
Do: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
DW: Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>, Brett Rudley <[email protected]>, Nohee Ko <[email protected]>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, b43-dev <[email protected]>
That's not enough to allow Fedora to ship it. We'd need a clear license from Broadcom (ex the existing Intel or Marvell firmware licenses) before Fedora could feel comfortable about shipping it legally in all jurisdictions.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.mwl8k;h=3224e1bbfba8ccd1d980f57eb88378f20bb2d146;hb=HEAD
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.libertas;h=1fd8766c26a170b50605455ae6f54b607baa12cf;hb=HEAD
There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed.
Re: [PATCH v2] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
Quoted 28 lines · Rafał Miłecki
2010/12/9 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>:
Quoted 27 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 18 lines · Rafał Miłecki
Quoted 8 lines
2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>:
Quoted 7 lines
Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. Also, fixed WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>Henry, I believe we got report that Red Hat can not include your firmware anyway because of licensing. Can you change license to some common one which allows providing your firmware with distributions?
That's news to me, what specific licensing issue have you heard about here? Last I saw, the issues were resolved and everyone could redistribute this firmware.
Quoted 4 lines · Dan Williams
There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I'm not sure that translates to "can not include your firmware". Regardless, I am trying to get our license simplified. Obviously that's taking some time, and I don't have any resolution yet, but I'll keep working on it.
You quoted just a selected part of Dan's message. Earlier he mentioned about Fedora's problems (sorry, I misremembered distro)
Yes, I omitted the earlier part since those comments were not directly about
the existing Broadcom license. But to be complete:
Quoted 11 lines
That's not enough to allow Fedora to ship it. We'd need a clear license from Broadcom (ex the existing Intel or Marvell firmware licenses) before Fedora could feel comfortable about shipping it legally in all jurisdictions.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.mwl8k;h=3224e1bbfba8ccd1d980f57eb88378f20bb2d146;hb=HEAD
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.libertas;h=1fd8766c26a170b50605455ae6f54b607baa12cf;hb=HEADThere's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed.
(via http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=128767431028798&w=2)
- Henry
Re: [PATCH v2] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
W dniu 9 grudnia 2010 02:30 użytkownik Henry Ptasinski
Quoted 2 lines · <[email protected]> napisał:
Yes, I omitted the earlier part since those comments were not directly about the existing Broadcom license. But to be complete:
Yes, this part explained why I mentioned distos problems.
Quoted 2 lines
Obviously that's taking some time,
and I don't have any resolution yet, but I'll keep working on it.
Great, thanks :)
Signature · 1 line
Rafał
Subject: [PATCH] staging: brcm80211: brcmfmac: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
In reply to a message not in the archiveThe basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Rename the firmware files using just basename-apiversion.
Users of the brcmfmac driver will need to update the linux-firmware package to get the renamed files, or manually rename their installed firmware files.
--- drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmfmac/wl_cfg80211.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmfmac/wl_cfg80211.c +2 -2
@@ -54,8 +54,8 @@ static struct wl_dev *wl_cfg80211_dev;u32 wl_dbg_level =WL_DBG_ERR |WL_DBG_INFO ; -#define WL_4329_FW_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.bin" -#define WL_4329_NVRAM_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt" +#define WL_4329_FW_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin" +#define WL_4329_NVRAM_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt"/* ** cfg80211_ops api/callback list
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1
Re: Subject: [PATCH] staging: brcm80211: brcmfmac: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
Quoted 9 lines · Henry Ptasinski
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Rename the firmware files using just basename-apiversion.
Users of the brcmfmac driver will need to update the linux-firmware package to get the renamed files, or manually rename their installed firmware files.
--- drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmfmac/wl_cfg80211.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
-ENOSIGNED-OFF-BY-LINE :(
Re: Subject: [PATCH v2] staging: brcm80211: brcmfmac: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames.
The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any value. Rename the firmware files using just basename-apiversion.
Users of the brcmfmac driver will need to update the linux-firmware package to get the renamed files, or manually rename their installed firmware files.
--- drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmfmac/wl_cfg80211.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmfmac/wl_cfg80211.c +2 -2
@@ -54,8 +54,8 @@ static struct wl_dev *wl_cfg80211_dev;u32 wl_dbg_level =WL_DBG_ERR |WL_DBG_INFO ; -#define WL_4329_FW_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.bin" -#define WL_4329_NVRAM_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4-218-248-5.txt" +#define WL_4329_FW_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.bin" +#define WL_4329_NVRAM_FILE "brcm/bcm4329-fullmac-4.txt"/* ** cfg80211_ops api/callback list
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1