[oe] linux-firmware

[Sander van Grieken]

On 09/07/2012 03:44 PM, Henning Heinold wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:31:41AM +0200, Sander van Grieken wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently, linux-firmware produces one big package with all binary
>> firmware files installed. It would be benificial , especially for
>> devices with a very small rootfs, to install only a subset of the entire
>> collection. Some effort has been done to split off separate packages,
>> but it's not clear what the preferred naming should be.
>>
>> - Should it follow the kernel-module-* naming, e.g.
>> kernel-module-ath9k-htc would need linux-firmware-ath9k-htc?
>> - Or should it follow the firmware file naming, e.g. linux-firmware-htc-7010
>> - Or maybe have a bit larger packages and simply split by vendor, e.g.
>> linux-firmware-atheros
>> - How and if to package the license file
>>
>> Thoughts?
> Because we even split all kernel modules into seperate packages we should do it for firmware files
> too. But that is a lot of monkey work, you need to check for all firmware files and make the right packages.
Yes, that's why I ask. It would be helpful if there's a comment in the
bb explaining this is wanted, and how to name the package. Then devs
working with certain hardware can define a specific package and test
with their hardware locally. This way it can be incrementally done.

> The scheme of the package names seems fine to me.
What scheme?

rtl8192cu follows kernel module naming, firmware is rtl8192cufw, and
includes license file
rtl8192ce follows kernel module naming, doesn't include license file
sd8686 follows firmware naming, includes license file
wl12xx follows 'firmware' naming (actually is vendor scope), doesn't
include license file

grtz,
Sander