On 22.06.2015 14:20, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
(please disregard my last e-mail - I pressed, by mistake, some control sequence to send it before finishing it)
Hi,
Em Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:47:42 +0200 poma pomidorabelisima@gmail.com escreveu:
Háu kola
$ lspci -d 4444:0016 -knn 01:08.0 Multimedia video controller [0400]: Internext Compression Inc iTVC16 (CX23416) Video Decoder [4444:0016] (rev 01) Subsystem: Hauppauge computer works Inc. WinTV PVR 150 [0070:8801] Kernel driver in use: ivtv Kernel modules: ivtv
$ dmesg | grep ivtv [ 10.082881] ivtv: Start initialization, version 1.4.3 [ 10.085644] ivtv0: Initializing card 0 [ 10.088287] ivtv0: Autodetected Hauppauge card (cx23416 based) [ 10.094502] ivtv0: Unreasonably low latency timer, setting to 64 (was 32) [ 10.183374] ivtv0: Autodetected Hauppauge WinTV PVR-150 [ 10.240409] cx25840 2-0044: cx25843-23 found @ 0x88 (ivtv i2c driver #0) [ 10.380617] wm8775 2-001b: chip found @ 0x36 (ivtv i2c driver #0) [ 10.431991] ivtv0: Registered device video0 for encoder MPG (4096 kB) [ 10.432151] ivtv0: Registered device video32 for encoder YUV (2048 kB) [ 10.432256] ivtv0: Registered device vbi0 for encoder VBI (1024 kB) [ 10.432358] ivtv0: Registered device video24 for encoder PCM (320 kB) [ 10.432459] ivtv0: Registered device radio0 for encoder radio [ 10.432473] ivtv0: Initialized card: Hauppauge WinTV PVR-150 [ 10.433869] ivtv: End initialization [ 11.820105] ivtv 0000:01:08.0: Direct firmware load for v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw failed with error -2 [ 11.820119] ivtv0: Unable to open firmware v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw (must be 376836 bytes) [ 11.820124] ivtv0: Did you put the firmware in the hotplug firmware directory? [ 11.820129] ivtv0: Retry loading firmware [ 12.439735] ivtv 0000:01:08.0: Direct firmware load for v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw failed with error -2 [ 12.439747] ivtv0: Unable to open firmware v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw (must be 376836 bytes) [ 12.439752] ivtv0: Did you put the firmware in the hotplug firmware directory? [ 12.439757] ivtv0: Failed to initialize on device video32 [ 12.439788] ivtv0: Failed to initialize on device video0 [ 12.439953] ivtv0: Failed to initialize on device vbi0 [ 12.439968] ivtv0: Failed to initialize on device video24 [ 12.440110] ivtv0: Failed to initialize on device radio0$ modinfo ivtv | grep 'author|firmware' author: Kevin Thayer, Chris Kennedy, Hans Verkuil firmware: v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg firmware: v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw firmware: v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw
$ rpm -qi linux-firmware ... Packager : Fedora Project Vendor : Fedora Project ... Summary : Firmware files used by the Linux kernel Description : This package includes firmware files required for some devices to operate.$ rpm -ql linux-firmware | grep v4l-cx2341x $
# yum install ivtv-firmware ... No package ivtv-firmware available. Error: Nothing to do ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ $ rpm -qilp https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/ivtv-firmware/20080701/26/noarch/ivtv-firmware-20080701-26.noarch.rpm Name : ivtv-firmware Epoch : 2 Version : 20080701 Release : 26 Architecture: noarch Install Date: (not installed) Group : System Environment/Kernel Size : 857256 License : Redistributable, no modification permitted Signature : (none) Source RPM : ivtv-firmware-20080701-26.src.rpm Build Date : Sun 08 Jun 2014 05:38:45 AM CEST Build Host : buildvm-11.phx2.fedoraproject.org Relocations : (not relocatable) Packager : Fedora Project Vendor : Fedora Project URL : http://dl.ivtvdriver.org/ivtv/firmware/ Summary : Firmware for the Hauppauge PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series Description : This package contains the firmware for WinTV Hauppauge PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 cards. /lib/firmware/ivtv-firmware-license-end-user.txt /lib/firmware/ivtv-firmware-license-oemihvisv.txt /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg /lib/firmware/v4l-cx25840.fw /lib/firmware/v4l-pvrusb2-24xxx-01.fw /lib/firmware/v4l-pvrusb2-29xxx-01.fw /usr/share/doc/ivtv-firmware /usr/share/doc/ivtv-firmware/license-end-user.txt /usr/share/doc/ivtv-firmware/license-oemihvisv.txtWhy these firmwares are not included upstream http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/ ?
Why these firmwares are obsoleted(?) downstream http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ivtv-firmware.git ?
Why these firmware are not included downstream http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/linux-firmware.git ?
I've no idea who tagged the ivtv-firmware package as obsoleted.
The status of the firmwares is that almost all ivtv firmwares are part of linux-firmware. However, we didn't manage to get an ack from Conexant (or Hauppauge) to release a few firmwares using a license that would allow redistribution. The problem is that those firmwares are for hardware that are discontinued by the chipset manufacturer.
So, those should still be released using the license that was granted on this package.
So, IMO, those files should be kept at the package: /lib/firmware/ivtv-firmware-license-end-user.txt /lib/firmware/ivtv-firmware-license-oemihvisv.txt /lib/firmware/v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw /lib/firmware/v4l-pvrusb2-24xxx-01.fw /lib/firmware/v4l-pvrusb2-29xxx-01.fw /usr/share/doc/ivtv-firmware /usr/share/doc/ivtv-firmware/license-end-user.txt /usr/share/doc/ivtv-firmware/license-oemihvisv.txt
The other files should be replaced by the ones at linux-firmware, with has a better license that allows redistribution.
Regards, Mauro
Thanks for your reply.
These two "firmwares" are also needed, right:
- v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw : CX23415 decoder part - v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg : decoder initializer
Multimedia video controller: Internext Compression Inc iTVC15 MPEG-2 Encoder (rev 01) Subsystem: Hauppauge computer works Inc. WinTV PVR-350
Are there any technical or legal issues for all these firmware files not to be included downstream within "linux-firmware" package, with the rest of firmwares?
On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 17:44 +0200, poma wrote:
Are there any technical or legal issues for all these firmware files not to be included downstream within "linux-firmware" package, with the rest of firmwares?
Whatever the answer to that question, it doesn't seem terribly relevant to test@. Especially when sending long mails that take lots of time for people to work out what you're saying (because you never explain, leaving people to infer it from reams of cut-n-paste), please take care that they're on-topic for the list.
On 22.06.2015 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 17:44 +0200, poma wrote:
Are there any technical or legal issues for all these firmware files not to be included downstream within "linux-firmware" package, with the rest of firmwares?
Whatever the answer to that question, it doesn't seem terribly relevant to test@. Especially when sending long mails that take lots of time for people to work out what you're saying (because you never explain, leaving people to infer it from reams of cut-n-paste), please take care that they're on-topic for the list.
Please do not pull the question out of context, and it will stay relevant -everywhere-, as it is. For you it's a "long" email, but it's actually technically concise to whom it may concern.
On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 00:33 +0200, poma wrote:
On 22.06.2015 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 17:44 +0200, poma wrote:
Are there any technical or legal issues for all these firmware files not to be included downstream within "linux-firmware" package, with the rest of firmwares?
Whatever the answer to that question, it doesn't seem terribly relevant to test@. Especially when sending long mails that take lots of time for people to work out what you're saying (because you never explain, leaving people to infer it from reams of cut-n-paste), please take care that they're on-topic for the list.
Please do not pull the question out of context, and it will stay relevant -everywhere-, as it is. For you it's a "long" email, but it's actually technically concise to whom it may concern.
But you're not sending it 'to whom it may concern', you're sending it to multiple public mailing lists. When you post to a public mailing list you're posting to *all* its readers, and you have a duty to ensure your mail is on-topic and comprehensible to that audience.
The question of what firmwares to include in the Fedora packages is on -topic for maybe the devel@ list or the kernel list, but unless it's causing some kind of major problem in a QA testing process, it's not particularly relevant for test@. The question of what should be in upstream linux-firmware isn't particularly on-topic for any Fedora list.
On 23.06.2015 00:51, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 00:33 +0200, poma wrote:
On 22.06.2015 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 17:44 +0200, poma wrote:
Are there any technical or legal issues for all these firmware files not to be included downstream within "linux-firmware" package, with the rest of firmwares?
Whatever the answer to that question, it doesn't seem terribly relevant to test@. Especially when sending long mails that take lots of time for people to work out what you're saying (because you never explain, leaving people to infer it from reams of cut-n-paste), please take care that they're on-topic for the list.
Please do not pull the question out of context, and it will stay relevant -everywhere-, as it is. For you it's a "long" email, but it's actually technically concise to whom it may concern.
But you're not sending it 'to whom it may concern', you're sending it to multiple public mailing lists. When you post to a public mailing list you're posting to *all* its readers, and you have a duty to ensure your mail is on-topic and comprehensible to that audience.
The question of what firmwares to include in the Fedora packages is on -topic for maybe the devel@ list or the kernel list, but unless it's causing some kind of major problem in a QA testing process, it's not particularly relevant for test@. The question of what should be in upstream linux-firmware isn't particularly on-topic for any Fedora list.
I *test* this on *Rawhide*, thus *Fedora*, therefore literally it is relevant everywhere, including here.
-_-
On 23.06.2015 00:51, Adam Williamson wrote: ...
The question of what firmwares to include in the Fedora packages is on -topic for maybe the devel@ list or the kernel list, but unless it's
...
Wait a minute, Williamson, did you mention @kernel and @devel, where the malicious hordes tried to promote usage of proprietary nvidia crap within the beautiful things called FOSS, such as Fedora is. Because I stood up against such attempts, I was banned from these lists.
Shame on them.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:56:30 +0200 poma pomidorabelisima@gmail.com wrote:
On 23.06.2015 00:51, Adam Williamson wrote: ...
The question of what firmwares to include in the Fedora packages is on -topic for maybe the devel@ list or the kernel list, but unless it's
...
Wait a minute, Williamson, did you mention @kernel and @devel, where the malicious hordes tried to promote usage of proprietary nvidia crap within the beautiful things called FOSS, such as Fedora is. Because I stood up against such attempts, I was banned from these lists.
Shame on them.
So, this will likely be my only post in this thread.
I cannot speak to the kernel list, but I am (one of) the moderators for the devel list. You are not "banned" there, you are simply moderated and most/all of your posts are not sent on to the list. This has nothing to do with nvidia drivers or the like, but instead is due to the following:
* You constantly cross post to large numbers of lists, resulting in anyone replying to you needing to go subscribe to all those lists or try and follow discussion in many places via archives.
* Additionally, You constantly post directly to people about things that are much better suited to bug reports and mailing lists. (In addition to large numbers of lists). This doesn't scale. Linus cannot reply to every direct email about the Linux kernel, etc.
* You often post long outputs of commands, but then don't say what the problem or issue is, you just hope someone will figure it out.
For example, this thread IMHO would have been fine for a bugzilla.redhat.com bug report against linux-firmware or kernel with something like:
"Hey, since ivtv package was retired I am unable to find 2 firmware files I need for my device. Can you take a look and see what happened to them? They are X and Y and here's my dmesg output"
kevin
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:35:49PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
For example, this thread IMHO would have been fine for a bugzilla.redhat.com bug report against linux-firmware or kernel with something like:
"Hey, since ivtv package was retired I am unable to find 2 firmware files I need for my device. Can you take a look and see what happened to them? They are X and Y and here's my dmesg output"
There are actually https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211055 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232773 on the subject. A cursory glance on discussions suggest that the issue was (is?) not that straightforward as everybody would like but apparently it is close to a solution. Hard for me to tell. I do not have that hardware.
Michal
On 23.06.2015 22:35, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- cut a crap -
For example, this thread IMHO would have been fine for a bugzilla.redhat.com bug report against linux-firmware or kernel with something like:
"Hey, since ivtv package was retired I am unable to find 2 firmware files I need for my device. Can you take a look and see what happened to them? They are X and Y and here's my dmesg output"
kevin
Et la marmotte met le chocolat dans le papier d'alu.
When someone proposes even the slightest, obviously needed change, to kernel custodians, they always try to play the "prom queen" role, just to show as they supposedly doing something special. Ha ha.
-
Adam Williamson -
Kevin Fenzi -
Michal Jaegermann -
poma