linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: SOF: Parse fw/tplg filename from DT

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:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:54:11 +0300
From:   Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....nxp.com>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: SOF: Parse fw/tplg filename from DT

Hi Pierre, Liam, Mark,

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 5:31 PM Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 5:39 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 05:18:00PM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> >
> > > Introduce two DT properties in dsp node:
> > >       * fw-filename, optional property giving the firmware filename
> > >       (if this is missing fw filename is read from board description)
> > >       * tplg-filename, mandatory giving the topology filename.
> >
> > These sound entirely like operating system configuration which I'd
> > expect to be inferred from the machine identification.  What happens if
> > a system has multiple options for firmware files, or if the OS ships the
> > topology and firmware bundled up in a single image to avoid them getting
> > out of sync?  What's the benefit of putting them in the DT?

Can you help me with this, specifically for selecting topology name.

I think I'm fine selecting a default value for SOF firmware name. It
looks like even
for Intel platforms there is no way of changing the firmware name.

But how about selecting topology name? We have lots of audio scenarios
that can run on the exact same hardware:
- e.g
   - Audio PCM playback + Post Processing
   - Audio Compress playback
   - Keyword detection


So, we need to use different topologies to select the scenario we want
to demonstrate.

Would it be acceptable to add tplg_name as a module parameter?

thanks,
Daniel.