Re: request_firmware() backport to 2.4

[Jean Tourrilhes]

Marcelo wrote :
> On 1 Sep 2003, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> 
> > no, the bfubase.frm is the original firmware file from AVM. This file
> > have to be placed somewhere on the filesystem. 
> 
> Right, and without placing the file somewhere on the filesystem bfusb
> 2.4.22 users wont have 2.4.23 working without "issues".

	But various high level kernel people, such as Jeff, have
decided that binary firmwares *must* be removed from the kernel
because of legal "issues" (GPL == source available). In 2.6.X, it
seems that the tolerance towards this "issue" will end, so all those
nasty details will have to work.
	Of course, 2.4.X is more "don't rock the boat".

	Have fun...

	Jean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Marcelo wrote :
> On 1 Sep 2003, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> 
> > no, the bfubase.frm is the original firmware file from AVM. This file
> > have to be placed somewhere on the filesystem. 
> 
> Right, and without placing the file somewhere on the filesystem bfusb
> 2.4.22 users wont have 2.4.23 working without "issues".

	But various high level kernel people, such as Jeff, have
decided that binary firmwares *must* be removed from the kernel
because of legal "issues" (GPL == source available). In 2.6.X, it
seems that the tolerance towards this "issue" will end, so all those
nasty details will have to work.
	Of course, 2.4.X is more "don't rock the boat".

	Have fun...

	Jean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/