Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
With the fixes for #976791 landed in linux-5.10~rc7-1~exp1 and the new release of alsa-ucm-conf in testing, this is the last remaining issue for getting audio to work on modern Dell machines (in my case a Precision 5750). It would be quite a shame for this to sit for a few more months and Debian end up not having working audio on year-old machines come bullseye. On 8/26/20 12:35 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: This now impacts more and more devices - new generation Dell laptops that ship with linux need this (plus a new release of alsa-ucm-conf with current git) to get audio.
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
This now impacts more and more devices - new generation Dell laptops that ship with linux need this (plus a new release of alsa-ucm-conf with current git) to get audio.
Bug#962134: [External] Re: Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
On 6/4/2020 9:21 AM, Mark Pearson wrote: OK - I have asked the SOF folk to talk to you about this. I'll unicast you the email address so you have the correct contact details too. I know some discussions started with the SOF folk. Has there been any progress for this issue? Anything that is stuck that I can help with? Thanks Mark
Bug#962134: [External] Re: Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
On 6/4/2020 4:56 AM, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 21:34 -0400, Mark Pearson wrote: Hi Paul - I'm afraid it does (not something of Lenovo's choosing to my knowledge...). Interesting, is it Intel doing the restrictions on Lenovo hardware? ISTR reading on one of the bugs that some hardware doesn't have the restrictions, so it is strange that Intel restricts some hardware vendors but not others. If you are able to push back on these Intel restrictions, it would be very much appreciated. I'll see what I can find out. I know the SOF team wanted to work with Debian on this issue a few months ago - I will dig up that email and point them at this bug so they can contribute to the conversation without me muddying the waters about their decisions (I was on their mailing list but not involved in the decision making) Interesting, thanks for that. OK - I have asked the SOF folk to talk to you about this. I'll unicast you the email address so you have the correct contact details too.
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
❦ 4 juin 2020 16:56 +08, Paul Wise: >> My understanding is the SOF team didn't want to use intel-firmware but >> I'm trying to find the discussion on the SOF mailing list as to why. > > I'm not sure what you mean by intel-firmware. Based on the Repology > website I guess you mean the Intel CPU microcode, which is shipped in > Debian in the intel-microcode package. > > https://repology.org/project/intel-firmware/packages > https://repology.org/project/intel-microcode/packages I think this is firmware-intel-sound (source package is fimware-nonfree). -- Test programs at their boundary values. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 21:34 -0400, Mark Pearson wrote: > Hi Paul - I'm afraid it does (not something of Lenovo's choosing to my > knowledge...). Interesting, is it Intel doing the restrictions on Lenovo hardware? ISTR reading on one of the bugs that some hardware doesn't have the restrictions, so it is strange that Intel restricts some hardware vendors but not others. If you are able to push back on these Intel restrictions, it would be very much appreciated. > My understanding is the SOF team didn't want to use intel-firmware but > I'm trying to find the discussion on the SOF mailing list as to why. I'm not sure what you mean by intel-firmware. Based on the Repology website I guess you mean the Intel CPU microcode, which is shipped in Debian in the intel-microcode package. https://repology.org/project/intel-firmware/packages https://repology.org/project/intel-microcode/packages > I think it was related to there being topology files and debug files and > wanting to keep everything together - and the other two files didn't > belong in intel-firmware. Since intel-firmware is mostly about CPU microcode, I agree that SOF doesn't belong in the intel-firmware/intel-microcode packages. > There were also concerns about it moving outside of their control. Their > solution was the sof-bin repository > (https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin) OK, I guess that this repository should be packaged in Debian non-free. I am surprised that they created a new repo instead of using upstream linux-firmware repository, I guess they wanted more control though. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/ This is going to be annoying because it means that every distro has to package sof-bin instead of just updating their linux-firmware package. > I have to admit - I hadn't considered the freedoms issues of that. It is seriously annoying, since it means you can't fix bugs and then immediately test them, you have to go through Intel SOF releases. > Is having a sof-firmware repository that is non-free the same way as > intel-firmware? I'm guessing Debian doesn't want to increase the number > of non-free packages? Debian is generally pragmatic about including new non-free packages, where it is necessary, someone who cares will usually end up doing it. We would obviously prefer everything to be fully free software, but we don't live in an ideal world so we make do with what we get. So a new sof-bin package (sof folks should rename that to sof-firmware-signed) should be fine to include in Debian. Hopefully someone will also package a build of the firmware source code for folks who can run unsigned or debug firmware builds. > I know the SOF team wanted to work with Debian on this issue a few > months ago - I will dig up that email and point them at this bug so they > can contribute to the conversation without me muddying the waters about > their decisions (I was on their mailing list but not involved in the > decision making) Interesting, thanks for that. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
On 6/3/2020 8:31 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > > > SOF is free software, but many devices require binaries that are signed > by Intel's keys, so the free license/source code much less useful and > the binaries going into linux-firmware are needed for most people. > > More details in the links on this page: > > https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Open > > Mark, do Lenovo Laptops require the Intel-signed blobs? > Hi Paul - I'm afraid it does (not something of Lenovo's choosing to my knowledge...). My understanding is the SOF team didn't want to use intel-firmware but I'm trying to find the discussion on the SOF mailing list as to why. I think it was related to there being topology files and debug files and wanting to keep everything together - and the other two files didn't belong in intel-firmware. There were also concerns about it moving outside of their control. Their solution was the sof-bin repository (https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin) I have to admit - I hadn't considered the freedoms issues of that. Is having a sof-firmware repository that is non-free the same way as intel-firmware? I'm guessing Debian doesn't want to increase the number of non-free packages? I know the SOF team wanted to work with Debian on this issue a few months ago - I will dig up that email and point them at this bug so they can contribute to the conversation without me muddying the waters about their decisions (I was on their mailing list but not involved in the decision making) Mark
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:02:50 +0200 Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > This is free software and could go into main or am I missing something? SOF is free software, but many devices require binaries that are signed by Intel's keys, so the free license/source code much less useful and the binaries going into linux-firmware are needed for most people. More details in the links on this page: https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Open Mark, do Lenovo Laptops require the Intel-signed blobs? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
Hi, Don't know if it helps but I raised #960788 on the same topic. It has a few details on how other distro's have packaged it which might be helpful. Once this is available I'm happy to do some testing. Thanks Mark
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 05:25:21PM +0200, Marek Straka wrote: > Package: firmware-linux-nonfree > Version: 20190717-2 > Severity: normal > > > Add Sound Open Firmware: > https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin > https://www.sofproject.org/ This is free software and could go into main or am I missing something? Cheers, Moritz
Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware
Package: firmware-linux-nonfree Version: 20190717-2 Severity: normal Add Sound Open Firmware: https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin https://www.sofproject.org/ -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.6.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages firmware-linux-nonfree depends on: ii firmware-amd-graphics 20190717-2 ii firmware-misc-nonfree 20190717-2 Versions of packages firmware-linux-nonfree recommends: pn amd64-microcode pn intel-microcode firmware-linux-nonfree suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
