On 09/07/2012 04:20 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > 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 > Ok thanks, that looks promising. Although the requirement 'Must include %s' would mean that the naming follows firmware, and probably serious regexp juggling is needed if you want to match a list of firmware files for a single package.
grtz, Sander _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
