On 8/23/19 1:44 PM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-08-23 18:26, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 8/23/19 5:43 AM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-08-23 12:26, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:29:59AM +0200, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-08-22 22:55, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 8/22/19 2:03 PM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
Code seen here is part of new Skylake fundament, located at the very
bottom of internal mainline. Said mainline is tested constantly
on at
least sigle platform from every cAVS bucket (description below).
This
week, BDW has been added to the CI family and was essential in
validating legacy changes. Baytrail platform is still missing.
Changes
for BYT directly mirror HSW/ BDW but due to current lack of platform
were untested.
Boards engaged in testing: rt286, rt298, rt274.
this is not enough, sorry. these are RVPs and you need to check with
commercial devices supported in sound/soc/intel/boards/.
What machine board has to do with FW and host side? If it has, we
better
notify the owner so he can fix codec's code at once. All boards
MUST follow
recommended protocol whether its HDA or I2S in communicating with
/skylake.
This is hardware IP we taking about. I could as well test all
platforms with
AudioPrecision and say: shipit.
The machine driver defines how many links are used, and in what mode
for the older cases where the topology is not used. You have
configurations with very complicated links, e.g. with amplifiers in
TDM mode plus IV feedback that will stress the firmware in ways that
regular RVPs don't. Same for the case where the SSP clock is turned on
at the request of the machine drivers. That's another case that can't
be tested on RVPs.
I am not saying you need to test with every single commercial device,
but that testing on RVPs is not a representative sample of the
configurations and actual workloads.
Each and every FW coming from main branch gets tested on both RVP and
production devices what is done with cooperation with integration teams,
PAEs and such. Windows teams alone ensures each binary gets smashed by
ten of thousands tests each week - this is true for any release
candidate, the standards are very high. Moreover, array of platforms is
engaged per target (e.g.: TGL) as single platform alone does not cut it.
So, I'd not worry about FW being vulnerable to any scenario as long as
recommended protocol is followed.
I didn't mean to diss the validation work, but the Chromebook cases and
amplifiers over TDM with IV feedback are certainly not configurations
tested by Windows folks who are using HDaudio+DMIC only.
With the request_firmware() mechanism, the kernel cannot parse the
file ahead of time, but don't you have a version information reported
by the firmware post-boot that can be used by the kernel so track that
the firmware isn't likely to work?
Wasn't lying about FW version being unreliable. Let's say vendor
receives quick FW drop with new RCR.. such eng drop may carry invalid
numbers such as 0.0.0.0..
In general, I try to avoid relying on FW version whenever possible. It
can be dumped for debug reasons, true, but to be relied on? Not really.
Goodness, that's really bad. I didn't realize this.
- user removes existing sym link from /lib/firmware/intel and creates
new one, pointing to updated FW binary that should also be present in
/lib/firmware/intel
That's typically handled by distributions updating the linux-firmware
package. Only advanced users and developers can change these symlinks.
The other point that comes to my mind is whether we are going to see
dependencies between firmware and topology files? Can you use an 'old'
topology with a 'newer' firmware, or is this a 3-way interoperability
issue?
Precisely! Three-way-tie!
It's best FW get updated together with topology as old FW may enforce
different constraints on pipeline modules.
Yay, between rock and hard place. On one side we got old buggy FWs which
should (more like should NOT be even here..) be updated to improve
user's experience but updating these alone won't cut it as host side
needs to be aligned too.
On the other we want to align upstream /skylake with actual working
example, which will quickly fail if it encounters obsolete FW binary.
And if that wasn't enough, lovely topologies come into picture where
some of these were developed behind FDK's back and thus completely
bypassing deployment process.
First thing we will do now is prioritizing topology refactor so all
initialization/ load oriented thingies will be visible for upstream
review. By doing so, we got all elephants in one room and can discuss
how to handle it in best fashion: seamless transition for end-users.
There aren't many options available: notify user -or- fallback to
defaults (hardcodes)? in case encountered binaries do not meet cAVS
design criteria.
Personally, I'm against all hardcodes and would simply recommend all
user to redirect their symlinks when they do switch kernel - along with
dumping warning/ error message in dmesg. Hardcodes bring problems with
forward compatibility and that's why host should offload them away to FW.
Cezary, I know you are not responsible for all this, but at this point
if we (Intel) can't guarantee any sort of interoperability with both
firmware and topology we should make it clear that this driver is not
recommended unless specific versions of the firmware/topology are used,
and as a consequence the typical client distros and desktop/laptop users
should use HDaudio legacy or SOF (for DMICs)
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
