On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:03:12 -0500 Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> People don't want N-PHY support? > > > > Well, as it sometimes is said "the better is an enemy of the good". If they > > feel comfortable without the N-PHY, why would they want it? > > > > Still, if you can add the support for it as a feature that doesn't affect > > the > > people's working configurations, no one will complain. > > I really want N-PHY and I have hardware to test it on. It's just the > word "fwprefix" that makes me allergic. Please note that nobody suggested to use "fwpostfix" in order to support regular migration from a kernel version to another one. That was proposed as a convenient way in order to switch back and forth between two kernel versions. Did anybody ever complain about ipw2200 very frequent firmware changes between kernel versions (i.e. http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php)? This would be the second firmware change for bcm43xx/b43. Please also note then that having b43-fwcutter to rename firmware according to its capabilities could be disruptive too (as people already have a lot of fun by downloading unsupported firmwares, and this would just confuse the users even more). A big fat printk that tells the user that the firmware found in /lib/firmware is unsupported and displays a linuxwireless.org URL seems the best solution to me. But again, Michael wasn't even talking about one particular implementation, he just wanted to warn in advance about a likely firmware change in the future. I know that distros out there are having even more fun than users in messing up this sort of things, but this can't really be claimed to be our fault. -- Ciao Stefano _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
