i dont like this one at all: Yet another would be to let users of devices that require
firmware that we can't distribute know that we're sorry for their plight but they're on their own. I agree with any of the others. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 05:12, Aggelos Economopoulos <ao...@cc.ece.ntua.gr>wrote: > Joe Talbott wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 08:46:47AM +0100, Sascha Wildner wrote: > >> Am 03.03.2010 18:11, schrieb Joe Talbott: > >>> My personal feeling is that we should do whatever > >>> we can to make porting drivers as easy as possible. > >> Port from where? We've not only ported drivers from FreeBSD in the past. > > > > My initial thought was to include both APIs though this would likely > > lead to confusion. > > So, I was discussing the situation with firmware we can't redistribute > legally. Getting the user to download it in, say, /etc/firmware would be > easy enough, but apparently the freebsd firmware interface we've > recently adopted to make the wireless sync easier assumes the firmware > is contained in a module. > > This seems suboptimal to say the least. We don't want to have to build a > module on the spot for each arbitrary file. One solution would be to > have the kernel look into /etc/firmware at firmware_get() time > (including some hack about the version number). Another would be to > convert everything to use our old interface (straightforward, but some > work). Yet another would be to let users of devices that require > firmware that we can't distribute know that we're sorry for their plight > but they're on their own. > > Which do we want to go with? Any other ideas? > > Aggelos > -- http://dfbsd.trackbsd.org.ar
