linux-firmware-nonfree: Add prism54 softmac firmware

Luis R. Rodriguez mcgrof at
Wed Feb 24 00:46:26 UTC 2010

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Chase Douglas
<chase.douglas at> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 12:02 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Chase Douglas
>> <chase.douglas at> wrote:
>> > I have uploaded a new version of the linux-firmware-nonfree package to:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The new package includes the firmware for prism54 softmac cards. The firmware
>> > was removed from linux-firmware due to it missing a proper license statement. I
>> > did not copy over the old prism54 (non-softmac) firmware because it has been
>> > superseded by the softmac firmware and is no longer useful in the Lucid kernel
>> > version.
>> Hey is PRISM54 no longer compiled in a module any more? I had set it
>> for removal on the feature removal schedule but  I wanted to give you
>> the heads up we've received a few reports of users unable to use
>> prism54 over p54pci. It was theorized this would happen but we didn't
>> have any confirmation, which is why we just didn't remove it.
>> How would you guys deal with having both enabled.
> Thanks for looking into this. I was going off of [1], which stated that
> the debian kernel does not include the prism54 module anymore.

Fun, passing this as a memo to lkml/Debian -- p54pci doesn't seem to
work well for *all* Prism54 FullMAC cards. They technically are the
same and the SoftMAC functionality was possible through a smaller
firmware. But it seems some cards have issues still with p54pci so I
would still enable prism54 as a module but not sure what to recommend
about dealing with two modules on the system for the same device.

> I checked
> the lucid kernel and we do have prism54 built as a module still. So, are
> we going to leave the prism54 module in, in which case we need to
> restore the prism54 firmware?

Yes I'd restore the prism54 firmware until the coast is clear with
p54pci for all. Its not the case so far as per reports.

> Or are we going to remove it, in which
> case the firmware package I uploaded was fine? I'm assuming at this
> point we'll be leaving it in though.

I'd say keep it for now.

> Andy, do you have any thoughts here?
> [1]


More information about the kernel-team mailing list