| To: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | jketreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pavel@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ipw2100-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <42A7DC4D.7000008@pobox.com> |
| References: | <42A7268D.9020402@linux.intel.com> <20050608.124332.85408883.davem@davemloft.net> <42A7DC4D.7000008@pobox.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:06:05 -0400 > Therefore, the easiest way to make things work today is to poke Intel to > fix their firmware license so that we can distribute it with the kernel :) Seperate firmware from the in-kernel driver is a big headache for users. As DaveJ has stated, people make mistakes and try to match up the wrong firmware version with the driver and stuff like that. And he should know as he has to deal sift through bogus bug reports from people running into this problem. If it's integrated, there are no problems like this. |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] iseries_veth: Supress spurious WARN_ON() at module unload, Michael Ellerman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ipw2100: firmware problem, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |