On 1/31/26 8:54 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 10:55:24AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 1/29/26 1:13 AM, Sibi Sankar wrote: >>> Enable ADSP and CDSP on Glymur CRD board. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/glymur-crd.dts | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/glymur-crd.dts >>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/glymur-crd.dts >>> index 0899214465ac..0eed4faa8b07 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/glymur-crd.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/glymur-crd.dts >>> @@ -487,6 +487,20 @@ &pon_resin { >>> status = "okay"; >>> }; >>> >>> +&remoteproc_adsp { >>> + firmware-name = "qcom/glymur/adsp.mbn", >>> + "qcom/glymur/adsp_dtb.mbn"; >>> + >>> + status = "okay"; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +&remoteproc_cdsp { >>> + firmware-name = "qcom/glymur/cdsp.mbn", >>> + "qcom/glymur/cdsp_dtb.mbn"; >>> + >>> + status = "okay"; >>> +}; >> >> Please make sure it gets to L-F (only Kaanapali is there right now) >> >> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]> > > Hmm, looking at x1e80100-crd which references qcom/x1e80100/adsp.mbn, > but the firmware in linux-firmware is (now) targeting IoT devices, > should we use WoA-like names for firmware on Glymur CRD instead > (qcadsp-something.mbn). It would match what was done for the SC8280XP > CRD.
I think it's simply time to stop pretending the firmware is generic (some fw simply isn't and some fw may come from different/incompatible branchpoints) and include a board name in the path Konrad
