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]

Message-ID: <bd85ea7c-e9b5-de67-07ce-7104a1e19805@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:28:57 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....nxp.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: SOF: Parse fw/tplg filename from DT




>>>> 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?

we already have a "tplg_path" module parameter which was intended to differentiate between product skews/versions using the same hardware and firmware version. A typical example would be an OEM using 'public' firmware + topology for basic audio support, distributed through sof-bin and packaged by distros, and 3rd-party/closed sources firmware modules in more advanced packages distributed separately by the OEM. In the latter case you do want the same path for firmware and topology, otherwise you'd have a risk of using a topology making references to a library not bundled in the firmware.

There was an initial ask from Curtis to have the ability to override the firmware/topology names, but they've been able to work with the path parameters - set with udev rules for specific models.

If you wanted to demonstrate 'scenarios', you could use the same approach?

Two other points to reply to Mark:

- we currently don't support 'shipping the topology and firmware bundled up in a single image to avoid them getting out of sync'. No idea how that might work.

- if the machine driver is specified in DeviceTree, then the topology used is *required* to be aligned with the machine driver. The rules are that a topology may not make references to a BE dailink exposed in the machine driver, but conversely if the topology makes a reference to a BE dailink that is not exposed in the machine driver the topology parsing will fail. It's one of the current weaknesses of topology-based solutions, we have non-configurable hardware-related things that are described in topology but should really be described in platform firmware, be it ACPI or DT, and provided to the topology.