On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Dave<kilroyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Karl Relton wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 14:58 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> Why all the srec->binary conversion? Doesn't this waste space on >>> people's firmware directories? >>> >> Yes, technically it does. The srec file is ~185KB, a binary image would >> be ~64KB. >> >> The reason it was left is that the driver has to do some runtime >> plugging of data into the image, so pre-compilation would have meant >> inventing both a compiler tool and an intermediate format for the driver >> to read and process. Putting all the srec processing in the driver was >> more expedient (just meant porting existing userspace code into driver >> space). > > I can't find the wlan_ng request_firmware call in my wireless-testing > tree (week or so old). Is that new? > > From what I can tell the wlan_ng, hostap and orinoco drivers all program > firmware that has the same basic format. Hostap doesn't use > request_firmware, and gives userspace the control over the write > sequence. orinoco places a very simple header in front of the binary image. > > Do we really want to add srec processing to the driver (or even the kernel)? > > It would be nice if the FW image was in the same format for orinoco and > wlan_ng, as the prism firmware ought to work on non-USB prism cards, and > we should be able to make orinoco use it. I never got the wlan_ng stuff.. Anyway now it is under drivers/staging/wlan-ng. I was under the impression it targeted some devices not covered by hostapd or orinoco, is that no the case? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
