Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-4519-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <87v85wg39y.fsf@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87v85wg39y.fsf@kernel.org>
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 17:07:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpq_XLUEMC67ck2tZRjqS0PazCkQWWMGmwydeWxTETHwcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] wifi: ath10k: support board-specific firmware overrides
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 17:19, Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

https://gitlab.com/kernel-firmware/linux-firmware/-/tree/main/qcom/sc8280xp/LENOVO/21BX

>
> > 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?

I was thinking about the firmware-name = "sdm845/Google/blueline". But
this can be really simpler, firmware-name = "blueline" or
"sdm845/blueline" with no need for fallbacks.

My point is that the firmware-name provides the possibility to handle
that in different ways.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry