Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > I did file a bug report with the details: >> > > >> > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217207 >> > > >> > >> > The firmware format is changed, and wireless-next tree or upcoming 6.3 will >> > support it. I will also post this information on the bug. >> >> We cannot break user space like that, linux-firmware needs to be >> backwards compatible. In other words, anything you submit to >> linux-firmware needs to work with old kernels. Should this new firmware >> be reverted from linux-firmware? > > I think I should support two or more firmware with different name, like > rwt89/rtw8852b_fw-2.bin, if format is changed. So, there will be two > firmware existing in linux-firmware. > > Then, for old driver, it only supports rwt89/rtw8852b_fw.bin. For new driver, > it will load rwt89/rtw8852b_fw-2.bin first, but if '-2' version doesn't present, > it will try to load original version. > > I think it would work, but I want to confirm if this is acceptable rules > for Linux. Yes, this is the recommended way to handle backwards compatibility. ath10k (and soon ath11k) will do something similar, we have firmware-2.bin, firmware-3.bin and so on to avoid breaking older kernels whenever there are incompatible changes in firmware. Recently some guidelines were also written about this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/firmware/firmware-usage-guidelines.html >> What about changes in the rtw89 driver? Do they still work with old >> firmware? > > New driver can work with old or new firmware. The only case that doesn't > work is old driver + new firmware. Very good, thanks for confirming. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
