Hi Kamil, Tomasz, On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Tomasz, Arun, > >> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:22 PM >> >> Hi Kamil, Arun, >> >> On 16.05.2014 12:09, Kamil Debski wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > ----Original Message----- >> >> From: arunkk.samsung@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:arunkk.samsung@xxxxxxxxx] On >> >> Behalf Of Arun Kumar K >> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:00 PM >> >> >> >> Hi Kamil, >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Arun, >> >>> >> >>> I asked you to put old and new v6 firmware in separate files. >> >> >> >> But wont that require a different filename other than s5p-mfc-v6.fw? >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> >> But the driver still expects the same file name. >> >> Can I put the new filename as s5p-mfc-v6-v2.fw and mention in the >> >> README that the file has to be renamed to s5p-mfc-v6.fw to be used? >> > >> > I think this is the way to go, because the new driver (with the patch) >> > will work with old firmware, while old driver (without the patch) >> will >> > not work with the new firmware. >> > >> >> >> >>> You should also mention in the commit message that this new >> firmware >> >>> will not work with the s5p-mfc driver without the patch you >> recently >> >>> submitted to linux-media mailing list. Please also add a link to >> the >> >>> thread with the necessary patch. >> >> >> >> Ok will do that. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> In addition to the above I think a readme/description file should >> be >> >>> added to the s5p-mfc folder. The issue of firmware for v6 should be >> >>> explained, so that no one is surprised that something does not work. >> >>> >> >> May I suggest a little different solution? >> >> Since to not break compatibility, support for both firmware versions is >> needed in the driver anyway, why not simply make the new, incompatible >> firmware always use a different filename. >> >> Then let the driver try to load the new one first and if it fails then >> load the old one? This would also let you get rid of that version check >> by hardcoded date, as you would know which firmware type was found. >> > > Tomasz, I really like your idea. I find it both simple and elegant. > This way there will be no need to rename the firmware file in the repo or > by the user, if the user wishes to use the new version. > > Arun, what is your opinion? > Yes this seems like a better approach to me too. With this the new FW used in older kernel issue is also resolved as the new fw file will have a different name and is not accepted in old kernel. Regards Arun >> Best regards, >> Tomasz > > Best wishes, > -- > Kamil Debski > Samsung R&D Institute Poland > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |