Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> No. The "sourceless firmware blobs" mentioned in this GR, are identified as
> those programs or register dumps or fpga config files, which are uploaded to a
> peripheral processor, and are part of a linux kernel driver in some way,
> usually an array of chars or some other binary embedded in a variable kind of
> things. We could also here include the main processor micro-code, since
> altough it runs on the same processor, it is not running in the same layer of
> the processor as the one running normal code.
Ah, another definition. It's clear from your "we could also here"
that you aren't sure whether certain things should count as firmware
or not. Do you see now why I might want some specificity before we
have a vote?
Since it's you who wants this GR, may I suggest that you'll need to
figure out just what you want the GR to say? I can't tell you what
you want your own proposal to say.
> Does this satisfy you as a definition ?
It is a little closer to a resolution that could even be plausibly
voted on. (It certainly doesn't satisfy me if you mean that I would
vote for it.) What satisfies me is simply compliance with our
existing standards. But that discussion should happen after the
secretary announces a discussion period.
Right now I'm concerned that we don't get disastrously vague
resolutions into voting.
> If the above is enough, maybe we could add this or a nicer rewording of it to
> the GR ?
The above includes things like "maybe we could include" and "usually"
and the like. It may be a step closer, but it isn't there until you
decide what you actually want.