On Friday 07 September 2012 16:12:39 Sander van Grieken wrote: > On 09/07/2012 03:44 PM, Henning Heinold wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:31:41AM +0200, Sander van Grieken wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Currently, linux-firmware produces one big package with all binary > >> firmware files installed. It would be benificial , especially for > >> devices with a very small rootfs, to install only a subset of the entire > >> collection. Some effort has been done to split off separate packages, > >> but it's not clear what the preferred naming should be. > >> > >> - Should it follow the kernel-module-* naming, e.g. > >> kernel-module-ath9k-htc would need linux-firmware-ath9k-htc? > >> - Or should it follow the firmware file naming, e.g. > >> linux-firmware-htc-7010 - Or maybe have a bit larger packages and simply > >> split by vendor, e.g. linux-firmware-atheros > >> - How and if to package the license file > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > Because we even split all kernel modules into seperate packages we should > > do it for firmware files too. But that is a lot of monkey work, you need > > to check for all firmware files and make the right packages. > Yes, that's why I ask. It would be helpful if there's a comment in the > bb explaining this is wanted, and how to name the package. Then devs > working with certain hardware can define a specific package and test > with their hardware locally. This way it can be incrementally done. > > > The scheme of the package names seems fine to me. > > What scheme? > > rtl8192cu follows kernel module naming, firmware is rtl8192cufw, and > includes license file > rtl8192ce follows kernel module naming, doesn't include license file > sd8686 follows firmware naming, includes license file > wl12xx follows 'firmware' naming (actually is vendor scope), doesn't > include license file
Ignore my other message - I was confused by some seemingly old code we have in kernel.bbclass, that is separate from the linux-firmware recipe. We should always be including the license file if present I believe. As for the package splitting I would advocate some kind of automated splitting using do_split_packages rather than manually packaging everything if we can avoid it. FYI I wrote something about the use of this here: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Handling_optional_module_packaging Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
