Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8350-mtp: Use mdt files for firmware

[John Stultz]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:45 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10-06-21, 22:27, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:08 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > As discussed in [1], it makes it easy for everyone to use mdt firmware file
> > > name instead of mbn ones, so changes this for SM8350
> > >
> > > [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/CALAqxLXn6wFBAxRkThxWg5RvTuFEX80kHPt8BVja1CpAB-qzGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts | 8 ++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts
> > > index 93740444dd1e..d859305f1f75 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-mtp.dts
> > > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ vph_pwr: vph-pwr-regulator {
> > >
> > >  &adsp {
> > >         status = "okay";
> > > -       firmware-name = "qcom/sm8350/adsp.mbn";
> > > +       irmware-name = "qcom/sm8350/adsp.mdt";
> > >  };
> >
> > Uhh, isn't this the opposite of [1]?  My apologies for butting in, and
> > I'd stay out of the discussion, except for my mail being linked as
> > justification :)
>
> I would rather think of your email as background material or trigger :)

My apologies for stirring up trouble. :)

> > In [1] the case was db845c was switched from older mdt files to using
> > the upstream linux-firmware mbn files. This was a bit of a pain, as it
> > broke on our userland with mdt files, and since we use both old and
> > new kernels we had to have both filenames on the disk (via symlink) to
> > keep it working everywhere.
> >
> > My argument in [1] was for new boards, go with the new conventions,
> > but we should avoid breaking those conventions casually on existing
> > devices.  That said, I know it's more complex, and I graciously defer
> > to Bjorn and RobC on the decision.
> >
> > But your patch above seems to be switching from mbn (what I understand
> > to be the new convention) to mdt (what I thought was the old way). And
> > from the git blame, it looks like it was introduced as mbn (new board,
> > new convention - so all good, right?).
> >
> > So is this really the right change? Or maybe just more exposition in
> > the commit message is needed (rather than pointing to my mail, which
> > seems to be arguing the opposite) to explain it?
>
> We have had a discussion after the email thread and thought it is better
> approach to stick to mdt format as used downstream and not have
> confusion and issues resulting from upstream vs downstream
>
> Since SM8350 is a new platform, so switching here onwards made sense,
> hence this patch
>
> I should have added more details for this in changelog as well...

Ok, thanks for the clarification!
-john