On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:25 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Ralink provides multiple drivers per bus type for RT28xx and later > > chips. For PCI devices they split between RT2860 and RT309x; for USB > > devices they split between RT2870 and RT307x (I think - the chip model > > numbers don't seem to be stated consistently). > > > > In addition, the USB drivers have two separate images packed together > > and they can select different images based on the controller version: > > > > #ifdef RTMP_MAC_USB > > if ((Version != 0x2860) && (Version != 0x2872) && (Version != 0x3070)) > > { // Use Firmware V2. > > //printk("KH:Use New Version,part2\n"); > > pFirmwareImage = (PUCHAR)&FirmwareImage[FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH]; > > FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV2_LENGTH; > > } > > else > > { > > //printk("KH:Use New Version,part1\n"); > > pFirmwareImage = FirmwareImage; > > FileLength = FIRMWAREIMAGEV1_LENGTH; > > } > > #endif // RTMP_MAC_USB // > > > > The firmware blobs in RT2870 version 2009-08-20 and RT3070 version > > 2009-05-25 are all marked as version 17 (or 0.17), but *they all have > > different contents*. > > > > I attempted to maintain the same version selection logic when converting > > the staging drivers to use the firmware loader, since I assumed there > > was a good reason for it. > > > > As you can see in the ralink web[1] RT28XX/RT30XX USB devices (RT2870/RT2770/RT3572/RT3070) > need _only_ the rt2870.bin fw-file. > > And RT28XX/RT30XX PCI/mPCI/PCIe/CardBus devices > (RT2760/RT2790/RT2860/RT2890/RT3060/RT3062/RT3562/RT2860/RT2760/RT2890/RT2790/RT3090) > need _only_ the rt2860.bin fw-file. These files aren't used by the Ralink drivers. So why should you believe the labels on them? > > linux-firmware is supposed to have all firmware files referenced by any > > version of Linux > > That's a good joke! > linux-firmware is *unmaintained* , a lot of firmwares are missing. linux-firmware is not *actively* maintained; it requires people to send submissions (repeatedly...). > Even the intel ones(microcode.dat, ipw2{1,2}*), zd1211, etc... I think there may be a problem with distribution of Intel Pro Wireless firmware because Intel requires users to accept a EULA. > Others are very old, really it's a mess. > Fedora puts _forty_ patches on top of linux-firmware. So help to make it better. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part