Paul Seelig <pseelig@rumbero.org> (2025-12-13): > On 12/13/25 13:06, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > We support much more than just the Pi 4 family. You seem to have > > borrowed from a function that matches the Pi 4 family specifically > > because of cma-related requirements (having it or not having it on > > the kernel cmdline). > Just reusing the very same function that was already defined by the > package maintainer in debian/kernel/postinst.d/z50-raspi-firmware and > trying to avoid that pointless (for a PINE64 device) error condition. Yes, I understood what was meant (reusing something), but that I'm saying that particular function is not appropriate for the purpose you're aiming for. (Spotting Pi family 4 versus detection a Pi, respectively.) > > > On Pinebook Pro and some other PINE64 devices, /boot/firmware is > > > usually just a subdirectory and there is no need to complicate > > > things by insisting it to be a mount point. > > Why are you deploying *raspi*-firmware on PINE devices in the first > > place? > A cursory read of the full thread > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=948712 should easily make > this clearer. > > The very same issue applies for > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064072, where a Pine64 > RockPro64 is affected. A closely related bug was filed via > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=999485 for the > firmware-brcm80211 package. > > The raspi-firmware package contains the /lib/firmware/brcm/brcmfmac434* > blobs that are required to use the Wifi capabilities of some PINE64 devices, > including the Pinebook Pro. These files would probably be better positioned > as part of the firmware-brcm80211 or other firmware package, but there > appear to be some reasons that impedes this so far. Yes, having someone who steps us and tackles the split of those files from the current raspi-firmware package (regardless of the destination package) is the proper way to address the issue. My mind is not made up regarding whether the mountpoint thing is something that should remain (whether it's restricted to Pi or not), but changing this only hides the actual problem longer, and that makes the whole situation even worse in my book. > Those using a Pinebook Pro are basically "condemned" to use the > raspi-firmware package for this blob component if we won't proper > network connectivity in Debian. And since the raspi-fimrware package > is designed with mostly RPI's in mind, these unfortunate postinst > error conditions arise if used outside of the intended scope. > > Discerning RPI's in the postinst scripts from other ARM devices that > use the included firmware in different ways would very much help its > wider user base. Again, the submitted patch does not actually do that. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois -- Debian Consultant @ DEBAMAX -- https://debamax.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature