On 03/08/2012 09:52 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 03/07/2012 07:14 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> Hey spot, >>> >>> On our weekly call today we discussed the always fun bit of binary >>> blobs. ARM has the usual wireless and associated blobs most of which i >>> think are already upstream (and already in Fedora). >>> >>> The bits that came up is uboot, MLO (X-Loader) [1] and what ever some >>> of the other devices use such as the Raspberry Pi. In the first >>> example the source code is available but forked from upstream, in the >>> later it's a binary blob not that dissimilar presumably to a wifi >>> firmware. For the binary blobs is the process the same as per wifi or >>> any other binary? What about the MLO/uboot, is it enough to package >>> the binaries and include details in COPYING/spec where the source code >>> is? >>> >>> I'm sure there's some other cases I've not thought of that you might >>> be aware of too. Can you advise of the best and easiest way for us to >>> deal with these? >> >> We need to review each of the binary firmware items individually. Just >> open review request tickets and block FE-Legal immediately. >> >> As for uboot, is there any good reason not to build from the available >> source code? And MLO? I'm not sure we can consider a bootloader to be >> firmware. That one might not be able to go into Fedora. > > Well we probably might well be able to but there's dozens of branches > and forks etc for initiated every different SOC in their millions of > different configurations, it's closer to a BIOS than a bootloader I > believe, Linaro is in the process of adding grub2 support for ARM so > grub will eventually run as a bootloader just like on x86. In that situation, will we still need the uboot/MLO stuff? ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
