"They may be statically linked into the kernel, or loaded as a modules." Context suggests this should read "as modules", not "as a module". Spotted while looking at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261227.
For a couple of wifi drivers rtwn, iwn, iwm, ... If you compile the driver into the kernel it's rtwn if you compile the firmware into the kernel too it is device rtwnfw (see sys/conf/files) and it will compile all firmware images in based on that single line. If you compile them as modules you get one kernel object (module) per firmware image instead of one for all. You would probably load only one module of all the firmware once in addition to the driver one. Hope that clarifies the technicallity; I'll leave the language to you.
(In reply to Bjoern A. Zeeb from comment #1) Would "They may be statically linked into the kernel as a single unit with both the driver code and all firmware variants, or used as modules (one per firmware variant plus the driver proper) in which case only one firmware module would normally need to be loaded." work for you? I think this is what you meant, but it may be too much detail.
(In reply to PauAmma from comment #2) Do we need that sentence at all given the SYNOPSIS? Also In the synopsis or description I'd suggest when it comes to loading modules that it gets at least hinted that normally one only needs one of these firmware modules and not all (or only the ones for the chipset one has). Lastly given I scrolled through the man page, the license ACK got disabled in 2016 by avos in 7453645f2a .
(In reply to Bjoern A. Zeeb from comment #3) > … normally one only needs one of these firmware modules and > not all (or only the ones for the chipset one has). … +1 to hints such as this. (For a different driver, I confess to mistakenly (?) loading _all_ modules, for years. Synopses misunderstood. Oops.)
(In reply to Bjoern A. Zeeb from comment #3) I'll leave it to you whether my suggested elaboration is needed, but either way, the number agreement should get fixed.
Created attachment 257133 [details] Proposed rtwnfw(4) modification: fixes plural, removes license acknowledgement requirement Will this patch be fine for all involved parties? I had also removed commented entry for FIRMWARE_LICENSE in /sys/modules/rtwnfw/Makefile.inc: it serves no visible purpose, but may consume people.
s/consume/confuse/