Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:44:33 +0200
On Tue, Aug 29, David Lang wrote:
you are assuming that
1. modules are enabled and ipw2200 is compiled as a module
No, why?
2. initrd or initramfs are in use
initramfs is always in use.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: David Lang
- Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- References:
- [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: James Bottomley
- Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: David Lang
- Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: Greg KH
- Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: Michael Buesch
- Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: Olaf Hering
- Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- From: David Lang
- [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/7] Remove the use of _syscallX macros in UML
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 6/7] remove all remaining _syscallX macros
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] MODULE_FIRMWARE for binary firmware(s)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|