Message ID | 20240611125057.1232873-1-yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | PCI: rcar-gen4: Add R-Car V4H support | expand |
Hello, > The pcie-rcar-gen4 driver can reuse other R-Car Gen4 support like > r8a779g0 (R-Car V4H) and r8a779h0 (R-Car V4M). However, some > initializing settings differ between R-Car S4-8 (r8a779f0) and > others. The R-Car S4-8 will be minority about the setting way. So, > R-Car V4H will be majority and this is generic initialization way > as "renesas,rcar-gen4-pcie{-ep}" compatible. Applied to controller/rcar-gen4, thank you! [01/04] PCI: dwc: Add PCIE_PORT_{FORCE,LANE_SKEW} macros https://git.kernel.org/pci/pci/c/544a18c936f9 [02/04] PCI: rcar-gen4: Add struct rcar_gen4_pcie_drvdata https://git.kernel.org/pci/pci/c/ac1d89f8dcc3 [03/04] PCI: rcar-gen4: Add .ltssm_control() for other SoC support https://git.kernel.org/pci/pci/c/2c49151b3fff [04/04] PCI: rcar-gen4: Add support for R-Car V4H https://git.kernel.org/pci/pci/c/60ad25bcac1d Krzysztof
Hello, [...] > About the firmware binary, please refer to the following patch > descirption: > PCI: rcar-gen4: Add support for r8a779g0 This quite a sad state of affairs, and usually would I oppose including drivers that rely on closed proprietary firmware blobs to operate. That said, Renesas is not really setting any precedent here, so we will live with this. Shimoda-san, if you can, please pass the feedback to your bosses that this decision to keep the firmware closed is rather unfortunate. Krzysztof
On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 05:06:50AM +0900, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: > Hello, > > [...] > > About the firmware binary, please refer to the following patch > > descirption: > > PCI: rcar-gen4: Add support for r8a779g0 > > This quite a sad state of affairs, and usually would I oppose including > drivers that rely on closed proprietary firmware blobs to operate. That > said, Renesas is not really setting any precedent here, so we will live > with this. What are the existing similar situations? Just for curiosity, I'd like to know what precedent we are relying on here.
Hello Krzysztof-san, > From: Krzysztof Wilczyński, Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 5:07 AM > > Hello, > > [...] > > About the firmware binary, please refer to the following patch > > descirption: > > PCI: rcar-gen4: Add support for r8a779g0 > > This quite a sad state of affairs, and usually would I oppose including > drivers that rely on closed proprietary firmware blobs to operate. That > said, Renesas is not really setting any precedent here, so we will live > with this. > > Shimoda-san, if you can, please pass the feedback to your bosses that this > decision to keep the firmware closed is rather unfortunate. I got it. I'll try it. Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda > Krzysztof
Hello Bjorn, > From: Bjorn Helgaas, Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 5:46 AM > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 05:06:50AM +0900, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: > > Hello, > > > > [...] > > > About the firmware binary, please refer to the following patch > > > descirption: > > > PCI: rcar-gen4: Add support for r8a779g0 > > > > This quite a sad state of affairs, and usually would I oppose including > > drivers that rely on closed proprietary firmware blobs to operate. That > > said, Renesas is not really setting any precedent here, so we will live > > with this. > > What are the existing similar situations? Just for curiosity, I'd > like to know what precedent we are relying on here. Wolfram mentioned it on previous email thread [1]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/53sfkav45djcaapqkzsps6ofsinf5lnxbhrjvgsevt3w6qcms6@e2vptwrj645q/ Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda
Hello, [...] > > > [...] > > > > About the firmware binary, please refer to the following patch > > > > descirption: > > > > PCI: rcar-gen4: Add support for r8a779g0 > > > > > > This quite a sad state of affairs, and usually would I oppose including > > > drivers that rely on closed proprietary firmware blobs to operate. That > > > said, Renesas is not really setting any precedent here, so we will live > > > with this. > > > > What are the existing similar situations? Just for curiosity, I'd > > like to know what precedent we are relying on here. > > Wolfram mentioned it on previous email thread [1]. > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/53sfkav45djcaapqkzsps6ofsinf5lnxbhrjvgsevt3w6qcms6@e2vptwrj645q/ Another example could be the Marvell's (formerly Aquantia) "Atlantic" network cards family, which requires a custom firmware blob that wasn't readily or freely distributed. The firmware files were never added to the linux-firmware repository. ... unless things have changes since I looked some time ago. Krzysztof