Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-5902-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
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> <CAA8EJpq_XLUEMC67ck2tZRjqS0PazCkQWWMGmwydeWxTETHwcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <871q7k3tnq.fsf@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <871q7k3tnq.fsf@kernel.org>
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:34:29 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA8EJppASEmj6-Jt7OCABAeqr8umSgXaDDha9nn2nRafuZ-Gvw@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, 5 Apr 2024 at 15:01, Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> I have been also thinking about this and I would prefer not to have the
> fallbacks. But good if you agree with that.
>
> IMHO just "sdm845-blueline" would be the most simple. I don't see the
> point of having a directory structure when there are not that many
> directories really. But this is just cosmetics.

It is "not many directories" if we are thinking about the
linux-firmware or open devices. But once embedded distros start
picking this up for the supported devices, this can quickly become a
nuisance. We have been there for Qualcomm DSP firmware and we ended up
adopting the SoC/vendor/device structure, because otherwise it becomes
a bedlam.

> > My point is that the firmware-name provides the possibility to handle
> > that in different ways.
>
> Very good, thanks.

Thanks for your suggestions and for picking the patches.

Bjorn, could you please pick up the DT patches now?

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry