Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] wifi: ath10k: support board-specific firmware overrides

From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,
	 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	 Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	 ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	 netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] wifi: ath10k: support board-specific firmware overrides
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:01:29 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <871q7k3tnq.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJpq_XLUEMC67ck2tZRjqS0PazCkQWWMGmwydeWxTETHwcg@mail.gmail.com> (Dmitry Baryshkov's message of "Sat, 9 Mar 2024 17:07:46 +0200")

Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes:

> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 17:19, Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>> >> To be on the safe side using 'qcom-rb1' makes sense but on the other
>> >> hand that means we need to update linux-firmware (basically add a new
>> >> symlink) everytime a new product is added. But are there going to be
>> >> that many new ath10k based products?
>> >>
>> >> Using 'qcm2290' is easier because for a new product then there only
>> >> needs to be a change in DTS and no need to change anything
>> >> linux-firmware. But here the risk is that if there's actually two
>> >> different ath10k firmware branches for 'qcm2290'. If that ever happens
>> >> (I hope not) I guess we could solve that by adding new 'qcm2290-foo'
>> >> directory?
>> >>
>> >> But I don't really know, thoughts?
>> >
>> > After some thought, I'd suggest to follow approach taken by the rest
>> > of qcom firmware:
>>
>> Can you provide pointers to those cases?
>
> https://gitlab.com/kernel-firmware/linux-firmware/-/tree/main/qcom/sc8280xp/LENOVO/21BX
>
>>
>> > put a default (accepted by non-secured hardware) firmware to SoC dir
>> > and then put a vendor-specific firmware into subdir. If any of such
>> > vendors appear, we might even implement structural fallback: first
>> > look into sdm845/Google/blueline, then in sdm845/Google, sdm845/ and
>> > finally just under hw1.0.
>>
>> Honestly that looks quite compilicated compared to having just one
>> sub-directory. How will ath10k find the directory names (or I vendor and
>> model names) like 'Google' or 'blueline' in this example?
>
> I was thinking about the firmware-name = "sdm845/Google/blueline". But
> this can be really simpler, firmware-name = "blueline" or
> "sdm845/blueline" with no need for fallbacks.

I have been also thinking about this and I would prefer not to have the
fallbacks. But good if you agree with that.

IMHO just "sdm845-blueline" would be the most simple. I don't see the
point of having a directory structure when there are not that many
directories really. But this is just cosmetics.

> My point is that the firmware-name provides the possibility to handle
> that in different ways.

Very good, thanks.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches