Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:12:15 +0200 From: Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@techwires.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: David Horn <dhorn2000@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Intel WiFi 5100/5300 Message-ID: <200910211012.15474.bschmidt@techwires.net> In-Reply-To: <25ff90d60910210029t5f8f67d0nd17b537ecaacdee9@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091009170839.142800@gmx.net> <200910210833.44121.bschmidt@techwires.net> <25ff90d60910210029t5f8f67d0nd17b537ecaacdee9@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 09:29:13 David Horn wrote: > >> The only new issue I have found so far is that I must manually load > >> iwnfw.ko before loading if_iwn.ko (the module depend used to work on > >> the in-tree driver) > > > > Hmm.. that is probably related to the rename of the firmware image, > > iwnfw-5000 instead of iwnfw. Is MODULE_DEPEND(iwn, iwnfw, 1, 1, 1); an > > option there? > > MODULE_DEPEND(iwn, iwnfw_fw, 1, 1, 1) > > added to if_iwn.c fixes it nicely (note: iwnfw_fw not just iwnfw). It > turns out the original driver loaded the iwnfw.ko module as part of > firmware_get() since the firmware module name matched the first > firmware image name (see firmware.h comments). Looking at the other > drivers, the other option is to break up the firmware images into > unique kernel modules (e.g. ral or iwi), and allow firmware_get() to > do the load. I would think that this would reduce kernel memory usage > as well (several individual firmware modules vs all firmware images in > one module). Just a thought. Any "offical" opinions on that one? Should we break iwnfw up into individual modules? -- Bernhard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200910211012.15474.bschmidt>