Re: [RFC][PATCH linux-firmware] isci: Add firmware blob and sources
From: Ben Hutchings
Date: Thu Dec 29 2011 - 12:05:10 EST
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 16:15 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 10:59 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > ---
> >> > I'm a bit unclear on the purpose and use of isci_firmware.bin. Is it
> >> > needed for production hardware?
> >> It's a stop gap for platforms with missing or broken oem parameters.
> >> It is meant to become vestigial once the platform revisions quiet
> >> down.
> >> > Does it need to be customised
> >> > per-system, or are module parameters sufficient for that? (If not, why
> >> > isn't it built into the driver?)
> >> It is customized per system to meet EMI and signal integrity targets
> >> of a given platform.
> > Given this, does it make sense to distribute a binary at all?
> It defaults to something that is reasonable for a reference platform
> and if you end up needing to customize it is easier to distribute a
> new binary then move all these settings to module parameters. That
> said, the intent was to start using WARN_TAINT_ONCE() if it ever got
> used and phase it out once the platform support stabilized. It was
> certainly convenient to have it in the same tree in the early days of
> the driver. Its use should be waning now.
I have now applied and pushed this addition to linux-firmware.git.
Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part