Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-4495-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,  "David S. Miller"
 <davem@davemloft.net>,  Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,  Jakub
 Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,  Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,  Rob Herring
 <robh+dt@kernel.org>,  Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,  Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
  Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,  Konrad Dybcio
 <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,  ath10k@lists.infradead.org,
  linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,  netdev@vger.kernel.org,
  devicetree@vger.kernel.org,  linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,  Krzysztof
 Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] wifi: ath10k: support board-specific
 firmware overrides
References: <20240306-wcn3990-firmware-path-v2-0-f89e98e71a57@linaro.org>
	<87plw7hgt4.fsf@kernel.org>
	<CAA8EJpr6fRfY5pNz6cXVTaNashqffy5_qLv9c35nkgjaDuSgyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87cys7hard.fsf@kernel.org>
	<CAA8EJpowyEEbXQ4YK-GQ63wZSkJDy04qJsC2uuYCXt+aJ1HSOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:19:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJpowyEEbXQ4YK-GQ63wZSkJDy04qJsC2uuYCXt+aJ1HSOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	(Dmitry Baryshkov's message of "Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:23:55 +0200")
Message-ID: <87v85wg39y.fsf@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes:

>> To be on the safe side using 'qcom-rb1' makes sense but on the other
>> hand that means we need to update linux-firmware (basically add a new
>> symlink) everytime a new product is added. But are there going to be
>> that many new ath10k based products?
>>
>> Using 'qcm2290' is easier because for a new product then there only
>> needs to be a change in DTS and no need to change anything
>> linux-firmware. But here the risk is that if there's actually two
>> different ath10k firmware branches for 'qcm2290'. If that ever happens
>> (I hope not) I guess we could solve that by adding new 'qcm2290-foo'
>> directory?
>>
>> But I don't really know, thoughts?
>
> After some thought, I'd suggest to follow approach taken by the rest
> of qcom firmware:

Can you provide pointers to those cases?

> put a default (accepted by non-secured hardware) firmware to SoC dir
> and then put a vendor-specific firmware into subdir. If any of such
> vendors appear, we might even implement structural fallback: first
> look into sdm845/Google/blueline, then in sdm845/Google, sdm845/ and
> finally just under hw1.0.

Honestly that looks quite compilicated compared to having just one
sub-directory. How will ath10k find the directory names (or I vendor and
model names) like 'Google' or 'blueline' in this example?

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

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