----------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Girdwood (1):
sof: Add Intel SOF V1.3 release firmware binaries.
LICENCE.sof | 1090
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Humm, that LICENSE file needs to be double-checked. Is there any
reason
why the text of this LICENSE.sof is different the usual text, e.g.
from
the LICENSE.adsp_sst?
LICENCE.adsp_sst is for the closed source firmware and LICENCE.sof is
for SOF. The key difference is the removal of Intel binary FW licence
and addition of BSD 3c, MIT, ISC and BSD 2c from SOF LICENCE file. Both
files are the same wrt newlib.
I would kindly ask that you run this by legal.
The BSD license is provided for the source files, it's a stretch to say
that the license extends to binaries without a statement that says that
the binary firmware is only made of those source files, unmodified and
without proprietary extensions. And to the best of my knowledge the
newlib dependencies do not apply when compiling with XCC.
* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this
software is
permitted.
I'm not following why we need the reverse engineering conditions for
opensource binaries.
me neither, that's why I stated that the model has to be different from SST.
and the DISCLAIMER part, both of which seem pretty important to me.
Disclaimer is in BSD 3 clause and MIT licence - exact same as the
sources.
Maybe I am splitting hair, but I'd like a professional opinion on that
license file. Better safe than sorry. I had GKH tell me on Friday to fix
a (c) 2017-19 and use (c) 2017-2019...
IANAL, but seeing only a patent clause looks odd. There should be a
mention of redistribution and a clear disclaimer (not sure about the
reverse engineering parts since the code is available it makes no
sense).
Patent clause is exactly the same as SST FW.
WHENCE | 33 +
intel/sof/apl/intel/sof-apl-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 270336
bytes
intel/sof/bdw/sof-bdw-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 100144
bytes
intel/sof/byt/sof-byt-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 89668
bytes
intel/sof/cht/sof-cht-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 90484
bytes
intel/sof/cnl/intel/sof-cnl-v1.3-6cc8da10.ri | Bin 0 -> 274432
bytes
intel/sof/icl/intel/sof-icl-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 278528
bytes
There are two types of platforms, the ones which require the Intel
firmware to be signed with a private production key and the ones
that
are signed with the SOF community key.
if we have a single directory, then how do we deal with the two
cases?
I've not yet upstreamed the community signed versions yet so everything
is in the intel/sof/platform/key/ directory structure.
It's not even clear to me which of the two cases are handled here.
Intel signed binaries, since they are in intel/sof/platform/intel
directory. Community signed will go in intel/sof/platform/community/
dir.
I don't understand what you're suggesting nor how it would work with the
way the kernel deals with directories. I tried to explain that we need
an intel/sof-production and intel/sof directories, each with generic
names that are symlinked to another location. This helps if you want to
build quirks that select one or the other capabilities by just changing
the firmware directory prefix. Pointers below.
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/blob/9d7da69a1e85db2cdbbaae78dd7eda4eeaa1eb1c/sound/soc/sof/sof-pci-dev.c#L24
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/blob/9d7da69a1e85db2cdbbaae78dd7eda4eeaa1eb1c/sound/soc/sof/loader.c#L269
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/blob/9d7da69a1e85db2cdbbaae78dd7eda4eeaa1eb1c/sound/soc/sof/sof-pci-dev.c#L149
I guess we need to talk off-line since we are evidently not on the same
page or something is missing for people to use this pull request.
intel/sof/sof-apl.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-bdw.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-byt.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-cht.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-cml.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-cnl.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-glk.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-icl.ri | 1 +
intel/sof/sof-whl.ri | 1 +
unless I am missing something, we don't have any tables in the Linux
kernel for the WHL and CML configurations, and IIRC we only generate
sof-cnl.ri. Is there actually a user for sof-whl.ri and sof-cml.ri?
There are glk users hence the addition of whl and cml.
glk has nothing to do with whl and cml. Not sure if there is a typo or
something I missed in your reply?
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
