netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] wifi: ath10k: support board-specific firmware overrides

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 17:07:46 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, 
	ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] wifi: ath10k: support board-specific firmware overrides

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 17:19, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.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