On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:00:54PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 22:40, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:33:16PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > This quickly becomes overcomplicated. Some platforms use different firmware > > > naming structure. Some firmware goes into a generic location and other files > > > go into device-specific location. So having a generic helper doesn't really > > > help. > > That sounds like a job for symlinks surely? > Excuse me, but I don't understand the goal for such symlinks. In my > opinion (and more importantly, in the opinion of qcom maintainers), > firmware-name does the necessary job. It provides enough flexibility > and doesn't require any additional dances around. The goal is to avoid adding a Linux specific ABI if we don't need one, and to allow later adjustment of what's selected on the userspace side more easily (eg, if a more specific firwmare is found).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
