On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:14:27PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 18:07 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:00:16PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 17:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:08:27AM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > > > The answer as always for drivers in the main kernel package is
"get it
> > > > upstream". And for better or worse, I think that the regulatory
daemon
> > > > is likely to be a big sticking point for the driver going upstream
:(
> > >
> > > It sounded like this was more liked than the firmware approach.
> >
> > By who? I read exactly the opposite :)
>
> I read an article by thl on heise.de (in german), where it was
> supposed to be considered better that propriatry kernel stuff
> or. Maybe I should check the original tone.
proprietary kernel stuff != firmware :)
sorry, I'll take it back. I found the article (for German readers):
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung/70092...
and the quote was from Dax Kelson:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/32622
So, indeed no love for ipw3945.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net