On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:35:50PM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote: > On 6/9/20 12:31 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Why not just use a standard name for the firmware? If the firmwares > > vary per-board then building it using the machine compatible (or DMI > > info) could handle that, with a fallback to a standard name for a > > default setup. > The number of firmwares can vary per IC on the board itself. So you may > have X number of firmware files all with different names all targets for > different TAS2563 ICs. > Also TI will not be providing the individual binaries to the customer. > There is a customer tool that the user uses to create the binaries. > So the output names are arbitrary. > I was going to mention this in the cover letter but did not think mentioning > the user tool had any value That's all fairly standard for this sort of device. You could still cope with this by including the I2C address in the default name requested - do something like tas2562/myboard-addr.fw or whatever. The concern here is that someone shouldn't have to replace their DT if they decide they want to start using the DSP, and someone making a distro shouldn't be stuck dealing with what happens if multiple vendors decide to just reuse the same name (eg, just calling everything tas2562 regardless of plastics).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
