Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: use separate firmware for 43430 revision 2

[Kalle Valo]

Mikhail Rudenko <mike.rudenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 2021-05-10 at 11:06 MSK, Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches