[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1029843: live-boot: Devices Requiring Firmware: multiple requested files in single line overlapping / special characters

On Mon, 1 May 2023 at 20:03, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> (2023-05-01):
> > Also, the brcmfmac kernel module code mentions[3] that it can load
> > board-specific firmware file paths.  I'm not yet sure whether that's
> > relevant (either now, or in future).
> Yeah, both the function you pointed to and the one handling actual
> firmware requests seem to know about some alt_fw semantics, with a
> fallback. But I'm not diving into that rabbit hole. :)

That's a sensible strategy :)

Could either of you (Cyril, Diederik) recommend where I should ask
(and/or clone this bug) to follow up on the firmware filename issue,
given that the filename(s) seem to be generated from the kernel

(as a recap: the brcmfmac module attempts to load a file of the format
"brcmfmac43455-sdio.Raspberry Pi Foundation-Raspberry Pi 4 Model
B.txt" instead of "brcmfmac43455-sdio.txt" -- I saw the same thing
during my install, with string adjustments for brcmfmac43456 and Pi

I think that that's likely to be the cause of the firmware-not-loaded
problems in installation-reports #989593 and #1035392 (that second
report is from me, earlier today).  Even with the 'Contents-firmware'
file-to-package mapping, we won't find the relevant firmware file if
the name is wrong.

> Regarding “plans for the future”, it's worth mentioning #1033921, now
> cloned as #1035356. While the former is about license acceptance for
> some firmware packages specifically (and about to be fixed for bookworm)
> the latter is for longer term, with a proposed patch changing the logic
> around iterating over firmware filenames. I'm not saying it's going to
> solve spaces-in-filenames as it is, I just thought it'd make sense to
> mention it as that touches one relevant part of the hw-detect code.

Thank you; yep, I've followed _most_ of that (and arrived back here
again).  I will admit that most of what I've cognitively loaded from
it is "this script could use refactoring post-bookworm", and have not
processed the complete details.


Reply to: