Re: [PATCH 12/19] ASoC: SOF: Intel: Set the default firmware library path for IPC4

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2022-10-18 6:37 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 10/18/22 10:46, Cezary Rojewski wrote:

...

We should not debate on this mailing list what can or cannot be
released, not make any distinctions between Intel and others. The
library handling mechanism is generic, who provides the libraries is
irrelevant.

No problem, leaving this out of the discussion.

...

You're assuming that it's the same exact set of binary libraries for all
skews based on the same SOC.

In majority of cases since Broadwell, that's the reality though. While theory may say otherwise, we were (and still are) releasing generation-wide builds e.g.: SKL-based firmware package, TGL-based firmware package.

...

That's not necessarily a valid assumption, it's perfectly possible that
a specific OEM decides to allocate more budget for a specific feature
and less for others, resulting in libraries that are recompiled,
optimized or configured differently. The UUID is a weak notion here, as
measured by the same UUID being used for different DSP generations.
Nothing prevents someone from generating a slightly different library
exposed with the same UUID.

We didn't want to restrict our partners and gave them with the ability
to put both the base firmware and the libraries in different directories
and overload the default path should they wish to do so. They could
decide to point to the same directory if they wanted to. That's not our
decision.

If you look at all recent evolutions, we initially introduced different
paths for firmware, then topology, then firmware and topology names. The
logic of adding more flexibility for library path follow the pattern of
trying to avoid making assumptions we have to undo at a later point.

Thanks for the elaborate input. The evolution sound good, and is perfectly reasonable. My only feedback is - should we put everything under /intel directory? If all the paths can be customized, then the parent directory needs not to be the same for every firmware package regardless of its origin. It's counterintuitive, is it not?


Regards,
Czarek



[Index of Archives]     [ALSA User]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Pulse Audio]     [Kernel Archive]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Photo Sharing]     [Linux Sound]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux