On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:31:34PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:30:25 +0200 > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:21:50PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: "Michael Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:51 -0700 > > > > > > > The bnx2 firmware changes quite frequently. A new driver quite often > > > > requires new firmware to work correctly. Splitting them up makes things > > > > difficult for the user. > > > > > > > > The firmware in tg3 is a lot more mature and I don't expect it to > > > > change. I think tg3 is better suited for using request_firmware(). > > > > > > Like I said, I think neither should change and the driver should > > > be fully functional when built statically into the kernel. > > > > Michael, doesn't a functional-yet-suboptimal firmware exist ? I mean, > > just the same principle as we all have kernels, boot CDs, statically > > built tools, etc... which run everywhere. If you have such a beast, > > maybe it would be a good start to have it in the kernel, and provide > > the users with the ability to upgrade the firmware once the system > > is able to do more complex things. > > > > Just a thought... > > So let's save 60K instead of 80K.
That's not for this reason I said this. Michael said the firmware needs to be updated somewhat often. What I was wondering was if it was not possible to stick to a stable one (and hopefully small) so that the driver could require less frequent updates. Sorry if it's not the main point of the discussion, but I grepped on this :-) > I mean, the entire discussion is just plain silly :) yes, possibly :-) Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
