Re: [RESEND] Re: updating carl9170-1.fw in linux-firmware.git

[Ben Hutchings]

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 23:11 +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:59:44 AM Kalle Valo wrote:
> > Christian Lamparter  writes:
> > 
> > > On Monday, April 18, 2016 07:42:05 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
> > > > Christian Lamparter  writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Monday, April 18, 2016 06:45:09 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Why even mention anything about a "special firmware" as the 
> > > > > > firmware is
> > > > > > already available from linux-firmware.git? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes and no. 1.9.6 is in linux-firmware.git. I've tried to add 1.9.9 
> > > > > too
> > > > > but that failed.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Rick's comment makes sense to me, better just to provide the latest
> > > > version. No need to unnecessary confuse the users. And if someone really
> > > > wants to use an older version that she can retrieve it from the git
> > > > history.
> > > 
> > > Part of the fun here is that firmware is GPLv2. The linux-firmware.git has
> > > to point to or add the firmware source to their tree. They have added 
> > > every
> > > single source file to it instead of "packaging" it in a tar.bz2/gz/xz
> > > like you normally do for release sources.
> > > 
> > > If you want to read more about it:
> > > 
> > 
> > Yeah, that's more work. I get that. But I'm still not understanding
> > what's the actual problem which prevents us from updating carl9170
> > firmware in linux-firmware.
> I'm not sure, but why not ask? I've added the cc'ed Linux Firmware
> Maintainers. So for those people reading the fw list:
> 
> What would it take to update the carl9170-1.fw firmware file in your
> repository to the latest version?
> 
> Who has to sent the firmware update. Does it have to be the person who
> sent the first request? (Xose)? The maintainer of the firmware (me)?
> someone from Qualcomm Atheros? Or someone else (specific)? (the 
> firmware is licensed as GPLv2 - in theory anyone should be able to
> do that)

Given the licence, I don't particularly care.

> How should the firmware source update be handled? Currently the latest
> .tar.xz of the firmware has ~130kb. The formated patches from 1.9.6 to
> latest are about ~100kb (182 individual patches).

Either patches that 'git am' can handle, or a git branch.

> How does linux-firmware handle new binary firmware images and new 
> sources? What if carl9170fw-2.bin is added. Do we need another
> source directory for this in the current tree then? Because 
> carl9170fw-1.bin will still be needed for backwards compatibility
> so we basically need to duplicate parts of the source?

We still need to include the old binary for compatibility, and the old
source for GPL compliance.  (If there was a source version that could
build firmware for both ABI versions, then we could update both
binaries and have one set of source files.  But it doesn't sound like
that's the case.)

> Also, how's the situation with ath9k_htc? The 1.4.0 image contains
> some GPLv2 code as well?

I didn't realise that.

> So, why is there no source in the tree, but just the link to it?

An oversight which we need to fix.

> Because, I would like to do basically the same
> for carl9170fw and just add a link to the carl9170fw repository and
> save everyone this source update "song and dance".

Merely linking to upstream source doesn't satisfy GPLv2 source
requirements, at least not in case of commercial distribution.  Linux
distributors should be able to use a snapshot of linux-firmware as the
upstream source for a package, without worrying about whether there are
extra sources they need to include.

(I'm aware that there are several files that don't actually have clear
licences for.  But those are at least called out in WHENCE, and were
previously distributed as part of the kernel sources for years.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at
once.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [RESEND] Re: updating carl9170-1.fw in linux-firmware.git

[Christian Lamparter]

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 04:08:10 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
> Lauri Kasanen  writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 03 May 2016 15:09:39 +0200
> > Christian Lamparter  wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 03:22:15 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> > Christian Lamparter  writes:
> >> > 
> >> > > Maintainers. So for those people reading the fw list:
> >> > >
> >> > > What would it take to update the carl9170-1.fw firmware file in your
> >> > > repository to the latest version?
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks for following up on this. It would be good to solve this finally.
> >> Well, this was almost two weeks and no update yet.
> >> Kalle, can you please apply the "[PATCH v2] carl9170: Clarify kconfig text"
> >> patch from "Lauri Kasanen " [0].
> >> 
> >> [0] 
> >
> > Seems we missed 4.7?
> 
> Yeah, I didn't consider this important enough and delayed it due to lack
> of time. I now put the patch back to my queue for 4.8, but please check
> that it's the correct version:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8861621/
Yes, this links to v2, which is the correct version.
 
> But we really should figure out how to get the latest version to
> linux-firmware, this is not good in the long run.
Well, none of my firmware patches were added/accepted and nobody
responded on how to add it to linux-firmware. I'm open for ideas.

Regards,
Christan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RESEND] Re: updating carl9170-1.fw in linux-firmware.git

[Kalle Valo]

Lauri Kasanen  writes:

> On Tue, 03 May 2016 15:09:39 +0200
> Christian Lamparter  wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 03:22:15 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
>> > Christian Lamparter  writes:
>> > 
>> > > Maintainers. So for those people reading the fw list:
>> > >
>> > > What would it take to update the carl9170-1.fw firmware file in your
>> > > repository to the latest version?
>> > 
>> > Thanks for following up on this. It would be good to solve this finally.
>> Well, this was almost two weeks and no update yet.
>> Kalle, can you please apply the "[PATCH v2] carl9170: Clarify kconfig text"
>> patch from "Lauri Kasanen " [0].
>> 
>> [0] 
>
> Seems we missed 4.7?

Yeah, I didn't consider this important enough and delayed it due to lack
of time. I now put the patch back to my queue for 4.8, but please check
that it's the correct version:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8861621/

But we really should figure out how to get the latest version to
linux-firmware, this is not good in the long run.

-- 
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RESEND] Re: updating carl9170-1.fw in linux-firmware.git

[Lauri Kasanen]

On Tue, 03 May 2016 15:09:39 +0200
Christian Lamparter  wrote:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 03:22:15 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
> > Christian Lamparter  writes:
> > 
> > > Maintainers. So for those people reading the fw list:
> > >
> > > What would it take to update the carl9170-1.fw firmware file in your
> > > repository to the latest version?
> > 
> > Thanks for following up on this. It would be good to solve this finally.
> Well, this was almost two weeks and no update yet.
> Kalle, can you please apply the "[PATCH v2] carl9170: Clarify kconfig text"
> patch from "Lauri Kasanen " [0].
> 
> [0] 

Seems we missed 4.7?

- Lauri
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[RESEND] Re: updating carl9170-1.fw in linux-firmware.git

[Christian Lamparter]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:59:44 AM Kalle Valo wrote:
> Christian Lamparter  writes:
> 
> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 07:42:05 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Christian Lamparter  writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 06:45:09 PM Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why even mention anything about a "special firmware" as the firmware is
> >> >> already available from linux-firmware.git? 
> >> >
> >> > Yes and no. 1.9.6 is in linux-firmware.git. I've tried to add 1.9.9 too
> >> > but that failed.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Rick's comment makes sense to me, better just to provide the latest
> >> version. No need to unnecessary confuse the users. And if someone really
> >> wants to use an older version that she can retrieve it from the git
> >> history.
> >
> > Part of the fun here is that firmware is GPLv2. The linux-firmware.git has
> > to point to or add the firmware source to their tree. They have added every
> > single source file to it instead of "packaging" it in a tar.bz2/gz/xz
> > like you normally do for release sources.
> >
> > If you want to read more about it:
> > 
> 
> Yeah, that's more work. I get that. But I'm still not understanding
> what's the actual problem which prevents us from updating carl9170
> firmware in linux-firmware.
I'm not sure, but why not ask? I've added the cc'ed Linux Firmware
Maintainers. So for those people reading the fw list:

What would it take to update the carl9170-1.fw firmware file in your
repository to the latest version?

Who has to sent the firmware update. Does it have to be the person who
sent the first request? (Xose)? The maintainer of the firmware (me)?
someone from Qualcomm Atheros? Or someone else (specific)? (the 
firmware is licensed as GPLv2 - in theory anyone should be able to
do that)

How should the firmware source update be handled? Currently the latest
.tar.xz of the firmware has ~130kb. The formated patches from 1.9.6 to
latest are about ~100kb (182 individual patches).

How does linux-firmware handle new binary firmware images and new 
sources? What if carl9170fw-2.bin is added. Do we need another
source directory for this in the current tree then? Because 
carl9170fw-1.bin will still be needed for backwards compatibility
so we basically need to duplicate parts of the source?

Also, how's the situation with ath9k_htc? The 1.4.0 image contains
some GPLv2 code as well? So, why is there no source in the tree, but 
just the link to it? Because, I would like to do basically the same
for carl9170fw and just add a link to the carl9170fw repository and
save everyone this source update "song and dance".

Regards,
Christian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html