Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Pkshih]

Hello,

Please help to update 8852a firmware.
This is first time I send a pull request. If anything is wrong, please let me know.

Thank you
Ping-Ke
---


The following changes since commit 2f4f0f826eed328675e8a84b1d80e41a25e94ec4:

  rtw89: 8852a: update fw to v0.13.8.0 (2021-04-29 16:51:35 +0800)

are available in the Git repository at:

  https://github.com/pkshih/linux-firmware.git

for you to fetch changes up to 2f4f0f826eed328675e8a84b1d80e41a25e94ec4:

  rtw89: 8852a: update fw to v0.13.8.0 (2021-04-29 16:51:35 +0800)

----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Kalle Valo]

Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> writes:

> Please help to update 8852a firmware.
> This is first time I send a pull request. If anything is wrong, please let me know.

rtw89 driver is not in upstream yet, and it has not been reviewed
either. I recommend holding off pulling the firmware until the driver is
reviewed.

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

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

Re: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Brian Norris]

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:05 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> writes:
>
> > Please help to update 8852a firmware.
> > This is first time I send a pull request. If anything is wrong, please let me know.
>
> rtw89 driver is not in upstream yet, and it has not been reviewed
> either. I recommend holding off pulling the firmware until the driver is
> reviewed.

FWIW, preliminary rtw89 firmware was already merged. This is just an update.

I also wonder, what's the harm? People like me are actively testing
the early versions, and I've done a very barebones amount of review (I
hope to do more). It really helps me to have up-to-date firmware
published somewhere central -- I guess I can take GitHub instead, but
again, why not kernel.org? If anyone else is looking at testing, they
know where to get the pieces too, and we can compare results.

Brian

Re: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Kalle Valo]

Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:

> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:05 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> writes:
>>
>> > Please help to update 8852a firmware.
>> > This is first time I send a pull request. If anything is wrong,
>> > please let me know.
>>
>> rtw89 driver is not in upstream yet, and it has not been reviewed
>> either. I recommend holding off pulling the firmware until the driver is
>> reviewed.
>
> FWIW, preliminary rtw89 firmware was already merged. This is just an update.
>
> I also wonder, what's the harm? People like me are actively testing
> the early versions, and I've done a very barebones amount of review (I
> hope to do more). It really helps me to have up-to-date firmware
> published somewhere central -- I guess I can take GitHub instead, but
> again, why not kernel.org? If anyone else is looking at testing, they
> know where to get the pieces too, and we can compare results.

It can create confusion to the users if during review we make changes
how firmware files are handled. Some drivers have windows style .ini
files which are not ok in an upstream driver, there could be changes in
the file format etc.

But I have no strong opinion here, my main motivation is just to try to
keep things simple for maintaining the "interface" between
linux-firmware and kernel wireless drivers. My preference is that the
firmware files are ready for submission when a new driver is submitted
for review, but the firmware files are submitted only after the driver
is accepted.

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

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

RE: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Pkshih]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org [mailto:kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org] On
> Behalf Of Kalle Valo
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 2:09 PM
> To: Brian Norris
> Cc: Pkshih; linux-firmware@kernel.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0
> 
> Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:05 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Please help to update 8852a firmware.
> >> > This is first time I send a pull request. If anything is wrong,
> >> > please let me know.
> >>
> >> rtw89 driver is not in upstream yet, and it has not been reviewed
> >> either. I recommend holding off pulling the firmware until the driver is
> >> reviewed.
> >
> > FWIW, preliminary rtw89 firmware was already merged. This is just an update.
> >
> > I also wonder, what's the harm? People like me are actively testing
> > the early versions, and I've done a very barebones amount of review (I
> > hope to do more). It really helps me to have up-to-date firmware
> > published somewhere central -- I guess I can take GitHub instead, but
> > again, why not kernel.org? If anyone else is looking at testing, they
> > know where to get the pieces too, and we can compare results.
> 
> It can create confusion to the users if during review we make changes
> how firmware files are handled. Some drivers have windows style .ini
> files which are not ok in an upstream driver, there could be changes in
> the file format etc.
> 
> But I have no strong opinion here, my main motivation is just to try to
> keep things simple for maintaining the "interface" between
> linux-firmware and kernel wireless drivers. My preference is that the
> firmware files are ready for submission when a new driver is submitted
> for review, but the firmware files are submitted only after the driver
> is accepted.
> 

I think I can maintain the firmware in GitHub before driver is accepted,
and add some information about firmware version and link in the cover of
patchset. Then, people can take proper firmware.

--
Ping-Ke

Re: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Brian Norris]

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:38 AM Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org [mailto:kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org] On
> > Behalf Of Kalle Valo

> > It can create confusion to the users if during review we make changes
> > how firmware files are handled. Some drivers have windows style .ini
> > files which are not ok in an upstream driver, there could be changes in
> > the file format etc.

Sure, good point. I figured if there's no driver merged anywhere
upstream, people (e.g., me) are taking their own life in their hands
trying to utilize arbitrary versions from the mailing list. But I
could see why you still don't want the potential mismatch.

> > But I have no strong opinion here, my main motivation is just to try to
> > keep things simple for maintaining the "interface" between
> > linux-firmware and kernel wireless drivers. My preference is that the
> > firmware files are ready for submission when a new driver is submitted
> > for review, but the firmware files are submitted only after the driver
> > is accepted.

Ack, that's definitely important to me. The first versions had no
publicly posted firmware, and at least one person (not me at the time)
asked for it. My extension of that is that I don't want to
_discourage_ vendors posting their firmware to public repos :)

> I think I can maintain the firmware in GitHub before driver is accepted,
> and add some information about firmware version and link in the cover of
> patchset. Then, people can take proper firmware.

Sure, that can work.

Thanks,
Brian

Re: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Kalle Valo]

Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:

> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:38 AM Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
>> > [mailto:kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Kalle Valo
>
>> > It can create confusion to the users if during review we make changes
>> > how firmware files are handled. Some drivers have windows style .ini
>> > files which are not ok in an upstream driver, there could be changes in
>> > the file format etc.
>
> Sure, good point. I figured if there's no driver merged anywhere
> upstream, people (e.g., me) are taking their own life in their hands
> trying to utilize arbitrary versions from the mailing list. But I
> could see why you still don't want the potential mismatch.
>
>> > But I have no strong opinion here, my main motivation is just to try to
>> > keep things simple for maintaining the "interface" between
>> > linux-firmware and kernel wireless drivers. My preference is that the
>> > firmware files are ready for submission when a new driver is submitted
>> > for review, but the firmware files are submitted only after the driver
>> > is accepted.
>
> Ack, that's definitely important to me. The first versions had no
> publicly posted firmware, and at least one person (not me at the time)
> asked for it. My extension of that is that I don't want to
> _discourage_ vendors posting their firmware to public repos :)

Yeah, I don't want to discourage posting either. It's just that we don't
want to do it too early nor too late, which doesn't make it easy for
submitters :)

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

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