Right. I'm planning on making use of this architecture to help with
flashing PRISM wifi devices. :-)
-- Garrett
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> That is the reason for trying to use a generic name for a utility that
>> only works with a limited subset of SCSI devices?
>
> The goal of the project is to allow this to be used by things other
> than SCSI.
>
> Quoting from the case material:
>
> "This fasttrack addresses that request and in the process extends
> fwflash(1M) to also provide a generic, pluggable interface for other
> devices for which a firmware update mechanism might be required in the
> future."
>
> The keywords here are "generic" and "other devices".
>
> Then later on in the material:
>
> "The existing InfiniBand functionality will be re-factored to work
> within the proposed plugin framework."
>
> So not only does the case provide a framework for use by things other
> than SCSI it actually mentions an non SCSI consumer.
>
> What is it about the above that isn't clear and makes you think that
> fwflash(1M) applies only to a subset of SCSI ?
>
> I should also point out that the case material also says that
> /usr/sbin/fwflash already exits and was approved and introduced by
> PSARC/2005/126.
>
> So if anything I believe this case is actually the one that addresses
> your concern that fwflash is a generic name and your issue would have
> been relevant to PSARC/2005/126. 2005/126 was originally proposed as
> ibflash(1M) because it was to be relevant only for InfiniBand, however
> the then PSARC committee asked the project to to prepare for having a
> generic interface for firmware flashing and rename it to fwflash(1M),
> *this* case (2008/151) is that future one that makes it generic.
>
