Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:41:39 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@plvision.eu>
Cc:     linux-firmware@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Oleksandr Mazur <oleksandr.mazur@plvision.eu>,
        Serhiy Boiko <serhiy.boiko@plvision.eu>,
        Serhiy Pshyk <serhiy.pshyk@plvision.eu>,
        Volodymyr Mytnyk <volodymyr.mytnyk@plvision.eu>,
        Taras Chornyi <taras.chornyi@plvision.eu>,
        Mickey Rachamim <mickeyr@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] linux-firmware: mrvl: prestera: Update Marvell
 Prestera Switchdev v3.0 with policer support
Message-ID: <YMyikxsdqNi8V5zG@lunn.ch>
References: <20210617154206.GA17555@plvision.eu>
 <YMt8GvxSen6gB7y+@lunn.ch>
 <20210617165824.GA5220@plvision.eu>
 <YMv0WEchRT25GC0Q@lunn.ch>
 <20210618095824.GA21805@plvision.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210618095824.GA21805@plvision.eu>
Precedence: bulk

> I just picked some from the git log:
> 
>     48237834129d ("QCA: Update Bluetooth firmware for QCA6174")
> 
> this just updates the binary and description says that it updates
> to v26.
> 
> Not sure if it is good example.

The filename is qca/rampatch_usb_00000302.bin. If you look at
drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c you can see that 00000302 is the version of
the ROM in the device which is being patched. So there is no
expectation of knowing the firmware version from the firmware
filename.

> But anyway, I agree with you that better if new changes also reflects
> the FW binary name (version) so it will be easy to find out which FW binary
> have or not particular features.
> 
> So I think better to add new FW 3.1 binary ?

Probably. But please consider your whole upgrade story. You are
changing the firmware version quite frequently. How do end users cope
with this? Is the driver going to support 3.1, 3.0 and 2.0? Or just
3.1 and 2.0?

Do you have more features in firmware 3.1 you need to add driver
support for? Or can we expect a 3.2 in a few weeks time? What are your
users expectations at the moment? It could be, you don't consider the
driver has enough features at the moment that anybody other than early
adopters playing with it would consider using it. That you don't
expect real use of it for another six months, or a year. If that is
true, you probably can be a bit more disruptive at the moment. But
when you have a production ready driver, you really do need to
consider how your users deal with upgrades, keeping the firmware
version stable for a longer period of time.

	Andrew