On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:27:57 +0100 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 3/3/20 9:11 AM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > Dne 02. 03. 20 v 12:02 Hans de Goede napsal(a): > >> Hi Jaroslav, > >> > >> Thank you for starting a discussion about this, we really need > >> to get this sorted out soon-ish as a lot of users are reporting > >> broken audio with 5.5.x because of the missing SOF firmware. > >> > >> On 3/2/20 11:10 AM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I would like you to introduce the situation with the Intel's > >>> Sound Open Firmware. We have finally a stable version of the > >>> driver in the Fedora kernel (5.5.7), so it's time to discuss this. > >>> > >>> The issue is that Intel need to deal with three type of > >>> files. The first file is the firmware (binary instruction blob > >>> which is executed in DSP, suffix .ri). The second file is the > >>> topology and configuration for the ALSA's ASoC core / SOF driver > >>> (suffix .tplg). Those both files are loaded via the firmware load > >>> calls from the kernel. The names for those files are determined > >>> using the hardware probe. The .ri files are platform (Broadwell > >>> etc.) dependent. The topology files might differ more (HDMI > >>> configuration, codec configuration etc.). > >>> > >>> The third file is not loaded via the firmware call, it > >>> contains the debug strings (SOF firmware is stripped, thus only > >>> pointers are returned through the trace interface and there's > >>> utility sof-logger which converts those pointers back to the > >>> strings using those .ldc files). It's just for the debugging > >>> purposes and for the normal operation, it is not used at all. > >>> > >>> The last piece is the signing. Intel has a secure mechanism > >>> which is activated in DSP, so DSP doesn't accept the unsigned > >>> firmware, if the hardware vendor wants (and they usually wants > >>> this security). So, although, the SOF firmware is being developed > >>> as open source, we cannot do own modifications, because we don't > >>> have the signing keys. Of course, there is open hardware where > >>> the public keys are used (like UP^2 or some Chromebooks). But > >>> Lenovo, Dell and others requires firmware signed by Intel. > >>> > >>> Personally, I'm trying to convince Intel's people to release > >>> the stable signed firmware files to linux-firmware, but so far, I > >>> have not been successful so far. My opinion is that the tested > >>> and verified binary topology files should belong to the > >>> linux-firmware, too. Intel do not agree on this (distributions > >>> should compile the topology binaries from the sources). > >>> Unfortunately, the topology sources are not distributed > >>> separately from the SOF firmware, so we need to deal with the > >>> whole SOF tree. > >>> > >>> For Fedora, I'm packaging the SOF firmware, topology and > >>> debug (.ldc) bundle > >>> (https://www.alsa-project.org/files/pub/misc/sof/) via the > >>> alsa-firmware package for now (this package is not installed by > >>> default which causes another bug iteration 'install this package' > >>> for users). Note that this is not in the upstream alsa-firmware > >>> tar ball. It's an extra thing. > >>> > >>> The last activity from the Intel is the sof-bin repository: > >>> https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin/tree/stable-v1.4.2 . > >>> It's probably a good step forward to have this reference, but > >>> it's outside the linux-firmware repository. I don't know if they > >>> want to mirror this to linux-firmware. > >>> > >>> The objective: Fedora/RHEL users should have sound available > >>> after the initial installation, thus we need to find the way to > >>> add those files to linux-firmware or install alsa-firmware > >>> package by default. Maybe, the best way will be to create another > >>> alsa-sof-bin package for the Intel's sof-bin releases and install > >>> it by default like iwl*-firmware files for their WiFi chips. > >> > >> Since the SOF firmware files have a separate upstream I think > >> that creating a separate alsa-sof-bin (*) package is probably > >> the best approach, at least for now since upstream does not > >> seem to be moving to adding the signed DSP firmware files to > >> linux-firmware anytime soon. > >> > >> As for where the topology files go, inside alsa-sof-firmware or > >> inside alsa-ucm, both need to be installed for things to work > >> anyways, so I will leave that up to you. > > > > The topology files are bundled in sof-bin, too. Intel does some CI > > tests with them, so I'd prefer to keep them with the DSP firmware > > files. > > > >> If you can create such a package I would be happy to do the package > >> review ASAP and then we can add a Requires for this to the > >> kernel-core pkgs so that users will get it automatically when they > >> install the next kernel update. > > > > The review request: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809303 > > Ok, I've just reviewed it, a few minor remarks but I've approved it > regardless so you can move forward with this. > > > If accepted, I should probably add 'Conflicts: alsa-firmware <= > > 1.2.1-5' line and release alsa-firmware 1.2.1-6 without the SOF > > firmware files. > > Right, that is a good point and then put both in a combined update in > bodhi and once that combined update has hit updates-testing, add a > Requires for alsa-sof-firmware to the kernel-core package. could be this Requires more fine-graded? I guess the firmware is useful on Intel systems only (mainly?). Dan _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
