Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220718072144.2699487-1-airlied@gmail.com> <YtWeUOJewho7p/vM@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YtWeUOJewho7p/vM@intel.com>
From:   Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:29:56 +1000
Message-ID: <CAPM=9tyhOfOz1tn7uNsg_0EzvrBHcSoY+8bignNb2zfgZr6iRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: driver-api: firmware: add driver firmware guidelines.
To:     Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Wireless List <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        "dri-devel@lists.sf.net" <dri-devel@lists.sf.net>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> > +* Firmware should be versioned with at least a major/minor version. It
> > +  is suggested that the firmware files in linux-firmware be named with
> > +  some device specific name, and just the major version. The
> > +  major/minor/patch versions should be stored in a header in the
> > +  firmware file for the driver to detect any non-ABI fixes/issues. The
> > +  firmware files in linux-firmware should be overwritten with the newest
> > +  compatible major version. Newer major version firmware should remain
> > +  compatible with all kernels that load that major number.
>
> would symbolic links be acceptable in the linux-firmware.git where
> the <fmw>_<major>.bin is a sym link to <fwm>_<major>.<minor>.bin
>
> or having the <fwm>_<major>.bin really to be the overwritten every minor
> update?

I don't think providing multiple minor versions of fw in
linux-firmware is that interesting.
Like if the major is the same, surely you always want the newer ones.
As long as the
ABI doesn't break. Otherwise we are just wasting disk space with fws
nobody will be using.

Dave.