Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.19.149.2]:60034 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757630Ab0JHR1X (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:27:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4CAF5488.3030706@Atheros.com> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:57:36 +0530 From: Suraj Sumangala MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luis Rodriguez CC: Suraj Sumangala , David Woodhouse , Marcel Holtmann , linux-bluetooth , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-wireless Subject: Re: Firmware versioning best practices: ath3k-2.fw rename or replace ath3k-1.fw ? References: <20101008170258.GJ10149@tux> In-Reply-To: <20101008170258.GJ10149@tux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Luis, On 10/8/2010 10:32 PM, Luis Rodriguez wrote: > Suraj, > > What is the difference between ath3k-2.fw and ath3k-1.fw ? This is the same question for which I have been trying to get an answer. The only information that I got was it fixes some critical bug and support shared antenna. If ath3k-2.fw is an upgrade of ath3k-1.fw why do we need to name it differently? > > 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? Marcel had answered me before. It makes sense to have same file name. Other ways we end up changing the driver whenever there is a firmware change. > > 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 Regards Suraj