>>>> Introduce two DT properties in dsp node: >>>> * fw-filename, optional property giving the firmware filename >>>> (if this is missing fw filename is read from board description) >>>> * tplg-filename, mandatory giving the topology filename. >>> >>> These sound entirely like operating system configuration which I'd >>> expect to be inferred from the machine identification. What happens if >>> a system has multiple options for firmware files, or if the OS ships the >>> topology and firmware bundled up in a single image to avoid them getting >>> out of sync? What's the benefit of putting them in the DT? > > Can you help me with this, specifically for selecting topology name. > > I think I'm fine selecting a default value for SOF firmware name. It > looks like even > for Intel platforms there is no way of changing the firmware name. > > But how about selecting topology name? We have lots of audio scenarios > that can run on the exact same hardware: > - e.g > - Audio PCM playback + Post Processing > - Audio Compress playback > - Keyword detection > > > So, we need to use different topologies to select the scenario we want > to demonstrate. > > Would it be acceptable to add tplg_name as a module parameter? we already have a "tplg_path" module parameter which was intended to differentiate between product skews/versions using the same hardware and firmware version. A typical example would be an OEM using 'public' firmware + topology for basic audio support, distributed through sof-bin and packaged by distros, and 3rd-party/closed sources firmware modules in more advanced packages distributed separately by the OEM. In the latter case you do want the same path for firmware and topology, otherwise you'd have a risk of using a topology making references to a library not bundled in the firmware. There was an initial ask from Curtis to have the ability to override the firmware/topology names, but they've been able to work with the path parameters - set with udev rules for specific models. If you wanted to demonstrate 'scenarios', you could use the same approach? Two other points to reply to Mark: - we currently don't support 'shipping the topology and firmware bundled up in a single image to avoid them getting out of sync'. No idea how that might work. - if the machine driver is specified in DeviceTree, then the topology used is *required* to be aligned with the machine driver. The rules are that a topology may not make references to a BE dailink exposed in the machine driver, but conversely if the topology makes a reference to a BE dailink that is not exposed in the machine driver the topology parsing will fail. It's one of the current weaknesses of topology-based solutions, we have non-configurable hardware-related things that are described in topology but should really be described in platform firmware, be it ACPI or DT, and provided to the topology.
