Re: [RFC][PATCH linux-firmware] isci: Add firmware blob and sources

[Ben Hutchings]

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.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part