On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:45 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10-06-21, 22:27, John Stultz wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:08 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > As discussed in [1], it makes it easy for everyone to use mdt firmware file > > > name instead of mbn ones, so changes this for SM8350 > > > > > > [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/CALAqxLXn6wFBAxRkThxWg5RvTuFEX80kHPt8BVja1CpAB-qzGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts | 8 ++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts > > > index 93740444dd1e..d859305f1f75 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts > > > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ vph_pwr: vph-pwr-regulator { > > > > > > &adsp { > > > status = "okay"; > > > - firmware-name = "qcom/sm8350/adsp.mbn"; > > > + irmware-name = "qcom/sm8350/adsp.mdt"; > > > }; > > > > Uhh, isn't this the opposite of [1]? My apologies for butting in, and > > I'd stay out of the discussion, except for my mail being linked as > > justification :) > > I would rather think of your email as background material or trigger :) My apologies for stirring up trouble. :) > > In [1] the case was db845c was switched from older mdt files to using > > the upstream linux-firmware mbn files. This was a bit of a pain, as it > > broke on our userland with mdt files, and since we use both old and > > new kernels we had to have both filenames on the disk (via symlink) to > > keep it working everywhere. > > > > My argument in [1] was for new boards, go with the new conventions, > > but we should avoid breaking those conventions casually on existing > > devices. That said, I know it's more complex, and I graciously defer > > to Bjorn and RobC on the decision. > > > > But your patch above seems to be switching from mbn (what I understand > > to be the new convention) to mdt (what I thought was the old way). And > > from the git blame, it looks like it was introduced as mbn (new board, > > new convention - so all good, right?). > > > > So is this really the right change? Or maybe just more exposition in > > the commit message is needed (rather than pointing to my mail, which > > seems to be arguing the opposite) to explain it? > > We have had a discussion after the email thread and thought it is better > approach to stick to mdt format as used downstream and not have > confusion and issues resulting from upstream vs downstream > > Since SM8350 is a new platform, so switching here onwards made sense, > hence this patch > > I should have added more details for this in changelog as well... Ok, thanks for the clarification! -john
