On 18-12-2016 12:04, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Sunday 18 December 2016 11:49:53 Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> On 16-12-2016 11:40, Pali Rohár wrote: >>> On Friday 16 December 2016 08:25:44 Daniel Wagner wrote: >>>> On 12/16/2016 03:03 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> For the new API a solution for "fallback mechanisms" should be >>>>> clean though and I am looking to stay as far as possible from the >>>>> existing mess. A solution to help both the old API and new API is >>>>> possible for the "fallback mechanism" though -- but for that I >>>>> can only refer you at this point to some of Daniel Wagner and >>>>> Tom Gunderson's firmwared deamon prospect. It should help pave >>>>> the way for a clean solution and help address other stupid >>>>> issues. >>>> >>>> The firmwared project is hosted here >>>> >>>> https://github.com/teg/firmwared >>>> >>>> As Luis pointed out, firmwared relies on >>>> FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK, which is not enabled by default. >>> >>> I know. But it does not mean that I cannot enable this option at >>> kernel compile time. >>> >>> Bigger problem is that currently request_firmware() first try to >>> load firmware directly from VFS and after that (if fails) fallback >>> to user helper. >>> >>> So I would need to extend kernel firmware code with new function >>> (or flag) to not use VFS and try only user mode helper. >> >> Why do you need the user-mode helper anyway. This is all static data, >> right? > > Those are static data, but device specific! So what? >> So why not cook up a firmware file in user-space once and put >> it in /lib/firmware for the driver to request directly. > > 1. Violates FHS How? > 2. Does not work for readonly /, readonly /lib, readonly /lib/firmware Que? > 3. Backup & restore of rootfs between same devices does not work (as > rootfs now contains device specific data). True. > 4. Sharing one rootfs (either via nfs or other technology) does not work > for more devices (even in state when rootfs is used only by one device > at one time). Indeed. > And it is common that N900 developers have rootfs in laptop and via usb > (cdc_ether) exports it over nfs to N900 device and boot system. It > basically break booting from one nfs-exported rootfs, as that export > become model specific... These are all you choices and more a logistic issue. If your take is that udev is the way to solve those, fine by me. >> Seems a bit >> overkill to have a {e,}udev or whatever daemon running if the result >> is always the same. Just my 2 cents. > > No it is not. It will break couple of other things in Linux and device Now I am curious. What "couple of other things" will be broken. > and model specific calibration data should not be in /lib/firmware! That > directory is used for firmware files, not calibration. What is "firmware"? Really. These are binary blobs required to make the device work. And guess what, your device needs calibration data. Why make the distinction. Regards, Arend
