On Thu 03 Jan 15:50 PST 2019, Brian Norris wrote: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 03:30:14PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:18:18AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > > +- firmware-name: > > > + Usage: optional > > > + Value type: <string> > > > + Definition: must list the relative firmware image path for the > > > + Hexagon Core. > > > > Relative to what? I still think it's a terrible idea that your driver > > looks for files at the top-level /lib/firmware/ directory, but now > > you're leaking this into the device tree. This should at a bare minimum > > be namespaced to something like the qcom/ sub-directory. But ideally, > > the driver would automatically be deriving a further sub-directory of > > qcom/ based on the chipset or something, and then the only thing you'd > > describe here is some kind of variant string -- something akin to > > ath10k's qcom,ath10k-calibration-variant (see > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt), which > > doesn't require a full path-name or any hierarchy. > > Oh, I see Rob actually recommended this binding in v1, and it's (sort > of) in use by a few other drivers. Is it really expected that we put > arbitrary pathnames in device tree? None of the binding documentation > seems very specific to me, and their implementations *do* allow > arbitrary text. As it stands today, this is a great recipe for name > collision -- e.g., how the driver today suggests "modem.XYZ" names; is > Qualcomm really the only one out there making modems? :D > > So my natural instinct is to avoid this. But if that's what everybody > wants... > I share your concern about this, but I came to suggest this as the driver cares about platforms but the firmware is (often?) device/product-specific. E.g. we will serve the MTP and Pixel 3 with the qcom,sdm845-adsp-pas compatible, but they are unlikely to run the same adsp firmware. This allows the individual dtb to specify which firmware the driver should use. Regards, Bjorn
