On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Sunday 06 January 2008 23:01:00 John W. Linville wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:38:43PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > On Sunday 06 January 2008 22:35:51 Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > > Quoting Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > see "fwpostfix" module parameter > > > > > > > > Can we please avoid this annoyance this time? > > > > > > Go and complain at Broadcom please. > > > > Broadcom doesn't really have this problem, since they are free to > > include the binary firmware in their Windows/Mac/whatever drivers. > > > > If the driver needs different firmware, why not have it ask for > > different filenames? As I suggested elsewhere, this could be as > > simple as setting a default value for fwpostfix... > > I'm not sure why people are complaining about stuff that's not > done, yet. I just said that we need an update to an incompatible > firmware soon. HOW that happens is an entirely different question. > It seems like we _might_ be able to support both fw versions for some > limited time. If that is not possible for whatever reason, I will > change the fw filenames, of course. (And people will complain about > that, too. Because the rule for broadcom firmware is: Always complain > about whatever you do. ;) ) > The _just_ wanted to tell people about a serious change _before_ it > happens. I'm not sure why this results in all kinds of complaints.
Most probably, because the people don't want that to happen. ;-) Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
