lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add firmware bindings for Q6V5
On Thu 03 Jan 15:50 PST 2019, Brian Norris wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 03:30:14PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:18:18AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > > +- firmware-name:
> > > + Usage: optional
> > > + Value type: <string>
> > > + Definition: must list the relative firmware image path for the
> > > + Hexagon Core.
> >
> > Relative to what? I still think it's a terrible idea that your driver
> > looks for files at the top-level /lib/firmware/ directory, but now
> > you're leaking this into the device tree. This should at a bare minimum
> > be namespaced to something like the qcom/ sub-directory. But ideally,
> > the driver would automatically be deriving a further sub-directory of
> > qcom/ based on the chipset or something, and then the only thing you'd
> > describe here is some kind of variant string -- something akin to
> > ath10k's qcom,ath10k-calibration-variant (see
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt), which
> > doesn't require a full path-name or any hierarchy.
>
> Oh, I see Rob actually recommended this binding in v1, and it's (sort
> of) in use by a few other drivers. Is it really expected that we put
> arbitrary pathnames in device tree? None of the binding documentation
> seems very specific to me, and their implementations *do* allow
> arbitrary text. As it stands today, this is a great recipe for name
> collision -- e.g., how the driver today suggests "modem.XYZ" names; is
> Qualcomm really the only one out there making modems? :D
>
> So my natural instinct is to avoid this. But if that's what everybody
> wants...
>

I share your concern about this, but I came to suggest this as the
driver cares about platforms but the firmware is (often?)
device/product-specific.

E.g. we will serve the MTP and Pixel 3 with the qcom,sdm845-adsp-pas
compatible, but they are unlikely to run the same adsp firmware. This
allows the individual dtb to specify which firmware the driver should
use.

Regards,
Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-04 01:03    [W:0.065 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site