On Sat, 2022-03-05 at 17:23 +0000, Kevin Grant wrote: > > Hi Gerhard, > > I received your comments via github regarding my Kingst LA2016 open > firmware submission [1]:
Putting the link here for reference. IMO footnotes reduce readability, adding such a distance between your reference to something external and the link itself which others can follow. https://github.com/sigrokproject/sigrok-firmware/pull/1 > On 2022-02-25 17:41, gsigh wrote: > > >No, the sigrok-firmware repository is not a good location for the > >source code. It contains binaries only by design. If you got > >OpenSource firmware (new implementations or extensions to existing > >setups) then consider the sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw repository. > > The sigrok-firmware repository was suggested by a member of your > team, it seemed reasonable to me. Am not aware of such conversation, so I can't comment on that. Don't know if the suggestion really was to commit the _source_ of the firmware to the _firmware_ repo which by design exclusively holds binaries since their sources are not available. Notice that shipping binaries created from OpenSource code in a "firmware tarball" is different from putting the source in a repo which holds previously received binaries that the project is allowed to distribute. > Your suggestion of the sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw repo makes no > sense at all, being for unrelated hardware and with very > different firmware goals. Perhaps a new common sigrok-firmware > repo would be better, containing both projects. Let's see. The sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw repo contains source code, build support, and external dependencies, to create firmware for several devices that are based on the popular FX2 chip. Can't see a problem with that, or even spot a blocker. Would assume that your new(?) repo would even duplicate a lot of that existing stuff, to create an FX2 firmware from source code. Again: haven't checked, it's a guess. > On 2022-02-25 17:41, gsigh wrote: > > >Am saying that without having looked at any other part of your > >submission. Because firmware extraction from the vendor software > >is required in any case to get the FPGA netlist blob. Have been > >using mainline sigrok in combination with vendor firmware from > >different v3.5.x versions (3.5.1 to 3.5.5 which all contained the > >same blobs). So no feedback from me on your MCU firmware here. > > Are you saying that sigrok, an open source project, would prefer > closed oem firmware over an open source drop in-replacement? This is ... so not what I said. Neither said that, nor wrote it, nor meant it. All I said is: I haven't used your firmware in the few weeks that I worked on the PC side of Kingst LA since vendor firmware was required anyway. Haven't looked at implementation details of your submission when I commented on the choice of a git repository. And I don't speak for the sigrok project. It's up to them what they intend or desire or find acceptable. virtually yours Gerhard Sittig -- If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above ask your parents or an adult to help you. _______________________________________________ sigrok-devel mailing list sigrok-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sigrok-devel
