On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 15:12 +0530, Arun Kumar K wrote: > 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 [...] > >> 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. This is the right way to do it. New firmware files must not break old drivers, as distributions and users will usually install everything from linux-firmware without checking things like that. If the new driver can work with the old firmware, that's a bonus, but less important. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
