On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab<mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:21:01 -0400 > Michael Krufky <mkrufky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> Mauro, >> >> For the Conexant *reference designs* the firmwares are identical, yes. >> >> If you look at the windows drivers, there are some additional bits >> used for separate firmwares depending on which actual silicon is >> present. This is specific to the implementation by the vendors. > > If firmware versions are vendor-specific, then the patch "cx25840: fix > determining the firmware name" doesn't work, since people may have two boards > with the same silicon from different vendors, each requiring his own > vendor-specific firmware. > > The solution seems to have a setup parameter with the firmware name, adding the > firmware name at the *-cards.c, like what's done with xc3028 firmwares. This > also means that we need vendor's rights to distribute the specific firmwares. >> >> Not everybody is using the firmware images that you are pointing at... >> There is in fact a need to keep the filenames separate. Some >> firmware for one silicon may conflict with firmware for other silicon. >> >> -Mike Let me clarify: As far as I understand, there are some additional bits in the cx23885 firmware for use with certain vendor-specific stuff. That cx23885 firmware is compatible with all other cx23885 firmware, but not necessarily the cx25840. Likewise, there are some additional bits in the cx25840 firmware for certain vendor-specific stuff, that is compatible with all other cx25840 firmware, but not necessarily the cx23885. As I understand, if additional bits are added for a specific product, they might be added to the firmware in addition to the other bits already present for *that* firmware image. This means, any cx23885 firmware is OK to use for any cx23885, and any cx25840 firmware is OK to use for any cx25840. You will notice that most of these images can be interchanged between one another, but the additional bits are specific to the flavor of the silicon. There is no actual vendor-specific firmware -- all firmware for these parts are uniform for that part. However, there are some cx23885-specific bits that only apply to the cx23885, just as there may be some cx25840-specific bits that only apply to the cx25840. I dont know how to explain this any clearer. One thing that might be a good idea -- perhaps the bridge-level driver that needs to attach the cx25840 module should specify to the cx25840 module the filename of the firmware that should be requested. A module option would *not* be the best idea -- we should not expect users to know about this. Perhaps a default firmware filename could be named by cx25840. *but* we should not simply cause every driver to all use the same filename unless the original driver author can vouch for this as the appropriate course of action. Regards, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
