Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: add initial device-tree for Microsoft Surface Duo

[Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>]

On Fri 28 May 07:03 CDT 2021, Felipe Balbi wrote:

> Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue 11 May 03:07 CDT 2021, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>> Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> writes:
> >>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150-microsoft-surface-duo.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150-microsoft-surface-duo.dts
> >> [..]
> >>> >> +&remoteproc_adsp {
> >>> >> +	status = "okay";
> >>> >> +	firmware-name = "qcom/sm8150/adsp.mdt";
> >>> >
> >>> > For platforms where we have a Dragonboard or similar we push the
> >>> > test-signed firmware to qcom/<platform>/. I presume that the Duo
> >>> > wouldn't run on the test-signed firmware.
> >>> >
> >>> > So I think it's better to make this qcom/sm8150/ms-duo/adsp.mdt...from
> >>> > the start.
> >>> 
> >>> ms-duo would look odd. How about qcom/sm8150/microsoft/adsp.mdt?
> >>> 
> >>
> >> Sounds good to me.
> >>
> >> I do prefer using the non-split firmware package though (i.e. .mbn), if
> >> you don't have it you can repack the .mdt + .bNN files using
> >>
> >> https://github.com/andersson/pil-squasher
> >
> > Cool, I'll check if we have the non-split version and rename the FW
> > files.
> 
> doesn't seem like pil-squasher works with our slpi image. Gives me a
> 0-byte image :-)
> 

If your files are available somewhere I'd be happy to take a look, if
not patches are definitely welcome :)

> I would rather not touch the binaries if I can avoid it, though. Is this
> a strong requirement to use mbn rather than mdt?
> 

I've had numerous problems with things such as people upgrading N-1
files and having issues with the signature check just indicating that
"something" is wrong. Squashing the files avoid these kind of problems.

But it's not a requirement!

Regards,
Bjorn