[oe] linux-firmware

[Sander van Grieken]

On 09/07/2012 04:20 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2012 16:12:39 Sander van Grieken wrote:
>> 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
> Ignore my other message - I was confused by some seemingly old code we have in 
> kernel.bbclass, that is separate from the linux-firmware recipe.
>
> We should always be including the license file if present I believe.
>
> As for the package splitting I would advocate some kind of automated splitting 
> using do_split_packages rather than manually packaging everything if we can 
> avoid it. FYI I wrote something about the use of this here:
>
>   https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Handling_optional_module_packaging
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
Ok thanks, that looks promising. Although the requirement 'Must
include %s' would mean that the naming follows firmware, and probably
serious regexp juggling is needed if you want to match a list of
firmware files for a single package.

grtz,
Sander