From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080707.145819.209342070.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20080707221427.163c4a30@the-village.bc.nu> References: <20080707214218.055bcb35@the-village.bc.nu> <20080707.144505.67398603.davem@davemloft.net> <20080707221427.163c4a30@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Alan Cox Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:14:27 +0100 Return-Path: To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Cc: jeff@garzik.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, andi@firstfloor.org, tytso@mit.edu, hugh@veritas.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, mchan@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > > You seem to be trying to conflate legal and technical issues here. > > > > Exactly like the patches we are current discussing. > > > > Thanks for walking right into that. :-) > > No - the patches are for technical reasons, Which are? Consistent use of request_firmware()? That's pure bullox as far as I can see. Why provide the means to do something nobody has had a need for in 6+ years? Who needs to load different firmware for the tg3 driver? Who needs that capability? Distribution vendors? What for? In what case will they need to load different firmware from what the driver maintainer tested as a unit? Rather, they want separation. I can see no other real impetus. And, btw, who has the right to enforce this new burdon upon driver maintainers when they have had a working and maintainable system for so long? I can only see it being about separation, pure and simple. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org