Adding a phrase like: "This firmware binary block is intended to be
used in BSD/GPL licensed driver" would definitely clarify it.
Possibly adding:
"Source code/further explanations for this binary block
are available at file FFFF.F / are not available."
Being able to understand some binary blob would be nice, but being
able to modify and compile it isn't necessary, IMO. Most important,
of course, is to be able to use the thing. CPU type independently
most preferrably.
> Given the current SCO-IBM situation I don't want to be responsible
> for introducing any legally questionable IP into the kernel tree.
>
> This situation must have come up before, how was it solved then?
There are drivers with binary-only firmwares, and drivers with
firmware sources.
E.g.: drivers/scsi/qlogic*_asm.c vs. drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/
People can quite freely produce drivers which have magic binary blobs
in them. Also drivers/net/e100/e100_ucode.h contains such.
What Linux coders frown upon is having host CPU executed code in
obfuscated binary blobs (a'la NVIDIA case), but as more and more
peripherals have processors themselves, and need microcode downloads,
at least I can accept there being binary blobs, if the host code
is all in pure source format.
Sometimes explaining some "why I poke XYZ into ABC register" isn't
all that important, as long as it is well compartementalized, and
things around it in general kernal can be altered to suite new
style of doing some deep things.
> Cheers,
> Simon.
/Matti Aarnio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/