On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:27 PM Jaroslav Kysela <jkysela@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dne 03. 03. 20 v 12:44 Hans de Goede napsal(a): > > Hi, > > > > On 3/3/20 11:48 AM, Dan Horák wrote: > >> 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?). > > > > Yes you are right, it should probably be something like the following: > > > > %ifarch x86_64 > > Requires: alsa-sof-firmware > > %endif > > > > (untested) > > Does anyone know, how the iwl*-firmware files are installed? I cannot find any > dependency in kernel nor linux-firmware rpms. It's similar. It's done via comps. > Also, SOF may be used on other architectures like i.MX ARM platforms. I can > create packages with the different firmware files for specific architectures > instead one noarch package. I would split them up, I would probably still leave them as no-arch. I was going to ask for the arm NXP firmwares but I hadn't got as far as investigating which SoCs they would be needed for. Peter _______________________________________________ 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
