e100: eth1: e100_request_firmware: Failed to load firmware "e100/d101m_ucode.bin": -2
in [Setup]
|
Prev: e100: eth1: e100_request_firmware: Failed to load firmware "e100/d101m_ucode.bin":-2
Next: can't ping over crossover cable (get martian source)
From: Darren Salt on 27 Sep 2009 19:21 I demand that Ant may or may not have written... > Ever since I upgraded my Debian workstation's Kernel to v2.6.26 to > v2.6.30 and rebooting after almost 159 days of uptime, I noticed this in > my Debian's boot up and dmesg: > > [ 40.438588] e100 0000:01:09.0: firmware: requesting e100/d101m_ucode.bin > [ 40.555920] e100: eth1: e100_request_firmware: Failed to load > firmware "e100/d101m_ucode.bin": -2 That's -ENOENT; the userspace helper didn't find the requested file. [snip] > Do I need to be concerened about this error? Thank you in advance. :) If it's working (presumably, it is), then all is well. Otherwise, you need to install firmware-linux. -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES. I'm an absolute, off-the-wall fanatical moderate.
From: Aragorn on 28 Sep 2009 16:04 On Monday 28 September 2009 03:08 in comp.os.linux.hardware, somebody identifying as Pascal Hambourg wrote... > Hello, > > Ant a écrit : >> >> Thanks. firmware-linux package was it. I guess that network card was >> too old to be included? > > No, it is because of the Debian policy : non-free blobs and firmwares > included in the mainline kernel sources are moved away from the Debian > kernel into separate non-free packages. I'm afraid that statement is built upon a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as "non-free blobs and firmwares included in the mainline kernel". The mainline kernel - i.e. the vanilla kernel as supplied by Linus Torvalds & friends - is completely GPL'ed and contains no binaries or firmware whatsoever, *because* it's GPL'ed. Such binary blobs and firmware are added only at the distribution level, and considering that Debian trie to be as politically correct as possible - since those binaries would automatically "taint" the kernel according to the GPL and would introduce non-backtraceable and non fixable bugs - Debian will probably package those separately as "non-free packages", that much is true. Yet the fact that they exist in Debian is the responsibility of the Debian kernel maintainers and has nothing to do with Linus & friends. ;-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Aragorn on 28 Sep 2009 17:18 On Monday 28 September 2009 09:08 in comp.os.linux.hardware, somebody identifying as Pascal Hambourg wrote... > Aragorn a écrit : >> Pascal Hambourg wrote : >> >>> No, it is because of the Debian policy : non-free blobs and >>> firmwares included in the mainline kernel sources are moved away >>> from the Debian kernel into separate non-free packages. >> >> I'm afraid that statement is built upon a contradiction in terms. >> There is no such thing as "non-free blobs and firmwares included in >> the >> mainline kernel". The mainline kernel - i.e. the vanilla kernel as >> supplied by Linus Torvalds & friends - is completely GPL'ed and >> contains no binaries or firmware whatsoever, *because* it's GPL'ed. > > Although the mainline kernel is GPL'ed, it does contain blobs and > binary firmwares. No, it does not. The kernel as supplied by Linus through kernel.org contains source code only. Anything binary being supplied as part of the kernel tree would violate the GPL, and Linus knows that. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: John Hasler on 28 Sep 2009 10:33 Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Although the mainline kernel is GPL'ed, it does contain blobs and > binary firmwares. Aragorn writes: > No, it does not. Yes it does. > The kernel as supplied by Linus through kernel.org contains source > code only. Not true. Many drivers include sourceless binary blobs. Some may be data but others are indubitably executable code. > Anything binary being supplied as part of the kernel tree would > violate the GPL, and Linus knows that. Anything done with the vendor's permission is ok with Linus. Debian requires source. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Aragorn on 28 Sep 2009 18:17
On Monday 28 September 2009 09:33 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody identifying as John Hasler wrote... > Aragorn writes: > >> The kernel as supplied by Linus through kernel.org contains source >> code only. > > Not true. Many drivers include sourceless binary blobs. Those would not be in the vanilla sources as supplied by Linus through kernel.org, or at least, not insofar as I myself have seen. Pascal has even pointed out such an alleged binary blob to me, which surprisingly on my system after expanding the kernel tarball for 2.6.31 appears to be a human-readable header to a GPL'ed driver, which is supplied in the kernel tarball as source code. > Some may be data but others are indubitably executable code. > >> Anything binary being supplied as part of the kernel tree would >> violate the GPL, and Linus knows that. > > Anything done with the vendor's permission is ok with Linus. Oh really? Then that must have changed very recently only, because as far as I know Linus Torvalds strictly adheres to the GPLv2, which explicitly forbids the linking of binary-only or even non-GPL-compatible code against the kernel. Mind you, this does not mean that one cannot run proprietary drivers on one's system. It only means that by doing so, you would be tainting the kernel, and last I read about it - which was not all too long ago - Linus still strictly adheres to GPLv2. It's more permissive than GPLv3, but it's still a version of the GPL. Linus may not always agree with Richard Stallman, but even Linus knows that violating the GPL(v2) would seriously jeopardize the integrity of Linux as a FOSS project. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157) |