On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:24 -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > Would we also use semantic versioning to align the UCM with the > > > topology and FW ? Currently we use semantic versioning for > > > topology and > > > FW. > > > > If we have the versions exported to ther user space, the UCM > > configuration > > loader / parser can use this information to select or verify the > > right UCM > > configuration. The semantic versioning in UCM files sounds good to > > me, too. > > My understanding semantic versioning is that it provides means to > handle > minor differences where a new capability is ignored in backwards > compatible ways. This is what we use for SOF structures between > driver > and firmware, new fields might be added but used or not depending on > versions. > > For UCM, the interaction with other layers is limited to stream > numbers > and control names, so I am not sure what semantic versioning and > backwards compatibility would mean here? I am all for it, but I > don't > get how it would work. > My thinking here was to try and track the FW component kcontrol surfaces for UCM. But I thought some more about it and it's better to track using the single TPLG + UCM repo method to ensure alignment between UCM and TPLGs. Liam _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
