Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.19.149.2]:57878 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754134Ab0JHRDB (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:03:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:02:59 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Suraj Sumangala , David Woodhouse , Marcel Holtmann CC: linux-bluetooth , , linux-wireless Subject: Firmware versioning best practices: ath3k-2.fw rename or replace ath3k-1.fw ? Message-ID: <20101008170258.GJ10149@tux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Suraj, What is the difference between ath3k-2.fw and ath3k-1.fw ? Won't the API change now that you are addressing the sflash configuration fix? Would it not help to identify the two different firmwares then? David, Marcel, what are your preferences for a firmware upgrade where the firmware does not change API (lets just pretend it does not for a moment) ? Do we keep the same filename? In this particular case I would assume our new sflash configuration fix that might be being worked on might change the re-enumerated USB device IDs so it seems to me a good idea to use a new filename. I should note ath3k-2.fw already made it to linux-firmware.git... I last tried to document a thread we had over this here: http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Documentation/firmware-versioning Does this sound sane? If so then the sflash configuration fix would seem to me like it would require a new filename. Now, while we're at it, how about bug fixes? Suraj -- keep these discussions public please.... Luis