On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:26:43 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 17:14:30 +0100, > > Jouni Malinen wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:04:26AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:50 PM Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: > >> > > Would the following in WHENCE work for you? > >> > > > >> > > Driver: ath11k - Qualcomm Technologies 802.11ax chipset support > >> > > > >> > > File: ath11k/IPQ6018/hw1.0/board-2.bin > >> > > ... > >> > > Version: WLAN.HK.2.1.0.1-01238-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-2 > >> > > Notice: ath11k/IPQ6018/hw1.0/Notice.txt > >> > > >> > We'd have to teach copy-firmware.sh what to do with a "Notice:" key. > >> > Is there a reason "File:" wouldn't work? The intention is to install > >> > the notices alongside the binaries, so that would accomplish it. > >> > >> Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. From copying/installing/distribution > >> view point, these can really be handled in the exact same way as the > >> actual firmware binaries in practice. > >> > >> > > In other words, there would be only a single "License:" line and one > >> > > "Notice:" line for each firmware version? The license itself (i.e., > >> > > LICENSE.QualcommAtheros_ath10k) is same for all the versions while the > >> > > set of notices (i.e., those notice.txt files) can be different based on > >> > > what is included in the particular build. > >> > > >> > Yes, that would help. Would you be able to adjust the existing > >> > entries for ath firmware in the same way? > >> > >> Yes, I'll work with Kalle to update the existing ath* WLAN cases. > >> > >> > > > > I'm still working on your other comment about notice.txt, will get back > >> > > > > on that later. > >> > > > >> > > This part about clearly identifying the files should be clear now, but > >> > > it would be good to resolve that part about the notice.txt files in > >> > > general before sending out an updated pull request. > >> > > >> > Given these were merged in the past, perhaps I'm being overly > >> > pedantic. If we can mark them as Files or Notices instead of > >> > Licenses, I won't hold it up. It leaves me slightly confused why > >> > attribution files need to reference agreements with Qualcomm, splatter > >> > Confidential and Proprietary throughout the file, and reference > >> > COPYING and README in reference to GPLv2 when the BSD license was > >> > clearly chosen. Perhaps that could be cleaned up in the future. > >> > >> Thanks. We'll remove most of the unnecessary information from the new > >> notice.txt files and that should get rid of many of the potentially > >> confusing parts. If that cleanup leaves something confusing in place, > >> we are open to cleaning these up further in followup patches, but it > >> would be nice to be able to get the updated versions into > >> linux-firmware.git without much more additional delay and yes, this > >> would be with the File: instead of Licence: entries for the notice.txt > >> files. > > > > The problem of "File:" is that it's more or less intended to be > > installed as the firmware files themselves, i.e. they are installed in > > /lib/firmware/* that can be loaded to the kernel. Putting such a > > random (document) file there makes me a bit nervous. > > > > We may introduce another tag to list up misc document files > > (e.g. "Doc:" or whatever)? Distros can pick up them and put to the > > appropriate places in the package, too. > > What about "Notice:" which I proposed above? To me "Doc:" sounds like an > optional file, which notice.txt files are not. That's why I prefer > "Notice:". Sure, it'd work, too. Only a patch is missing :) thanks, Takashi
