Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.barysh...@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? > 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? -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
