The ath_hif_usb driver will require the ar9271 firmware file but in the future an open firmware might become available. The ar9170 driver already is under the same situation already: a closed firmware is available but an open firmware can be used, only thing is ar9170 uses the same firmware name for both. We *could* change ar9170 to use the Intel practice of tagging a version at the end of each firmware release, like ar9170-1.fw but ar9170 originally was implemented with a 2-stage firmware requirement and so ar9170-1.fw is already taken. ar9170 still needs a solution for the different firmwares, once we start supporting the open firmware through some sort of release but I'd like to address ath_hif_usb now early so that we don't run into these snags and use some decent convention that is easy to follow. As I noted above, Intel seems to use the device-1.fw, device-2.fw naming convention. Is this the best approach? Or shall we have the same firmware filename and simply query the firmware for a map of capabilities? Any other ideas? 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
