On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 01:31:28PM +0530, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Luis, > > > What is the difference between ath3k-2.fw and ath3k-1.fw ? > > > > Won't the API change now that you are addressing the sflash > > configuration fix? Would it not help to identify the two > > different firmwares then? > > > > David, Marcel, what are your preferences for a firmware upgrade > > where the firmware does not change API (lets just pretend it does > > not for a moment) ? Do we keep the same filename? > > that is what most companies do and that is what iwlwifi has done so far. Luis this is what we have been doing for our ath9k_htc driver. We kept the same fie name for firmware updates as we haven't changed any APIs/interfaces that host driver depends on. > Only if the API breaks a different suffix is used. > > With Bluetooth this should be never needed at all. The reason is that > you need to expose Bluetooth HCI. And that has generic version, support > commands and supported features commands. > > We are not even using the version information for anything useful these > days since the firmware has to identify its features and its supported > commands with standard HCI commands. So it is pretty simple to detect > what Bluetooth subsystem needs to do. > > > In this particular case I would assume our new sflash configuration > > fix that might be being worked on might change the re-enumerated > > USB device IDs so it seems to me a good idea to use a new filename. > > I should note ath3k-2.fw already made it to linux-firmware.git... > > No it does not. The changed PID is not a breakage. It will just keep > working. So please fix this in linux-firmware.git right away and remove > the new firmware file. > > And here is something that is wrong with your process as well. Don't > submit firmware files upstream before the upstream maintainers accepted > your driver or patch. > > I know it is nice to have the firmware available quickly, but if your > driver gets rejected for the reason we have stated in this thread, you > have dangling firmware somewhere. > > > I last tried to document a thread we had over this here: > > > > http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Documentation/firmware-versioning > > > > Does this sound sane? If so then the sflash configuration fix > > would seem to me like it would require a new filename. Now, while > > we're at it, how about bug fixes? > > If your firmware files are identical and the exposed API is identical > (in this case Bluetooth HCI), then you do NO need a new filename. > > Regards > > Marcel > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" 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-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
