[Sound-open-firmware] Distribution of sof firmware and tplg files
Pierre-Louis Bossart
pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com
Sat Jan 11 00:15:57 CET 2020
> I'm not really convinced to handle .ldc in the other packages than the
> debugging ones. In my opinion, you should maintain the complete SOF
> binary firmware distribution in a separate package / tagged repository
> for all firmware / topology / .ldc files as the upstream reference and
> for the debugging. The ldc files do not belong to linux-firmware nor
> alsa-ucm-conf nor alsa-topology-conf.
>
> https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/2098
>
> Also, if you like to release multiple versions of SOF firmware in the
> linux-firmware package, it should be properly documented (the purpose,
> what exact hardware is affected etc.). It is really difficult to have an
> orientation there (and we as the maintainers for various distributions
> should know what to do).
>
> BTW: The SST firmware files are also affected with the lack of the
> documentation. I believe that only few people can tell us what firmware
> file belongs to the specific hardware / driver.
Thanks for challenging us and picking our brains.
I must admit I blindly followed the tradition, without asking questions.
linux-firmware was required in the past and we also wanted to use
alsa-conf-ucm for the rest. So conceptually I was set on a 2-part release.
If it's acceptable to distributions and users, it's true that having a
TBD one-stop shop for all required binary/configuration/debug files,
along with release collateral, would be a lot simpler. No risk of
different parts flowing independently in different packages, pull
requests being delayed, etc. Why not indeed?
That's be a big decision though so we'd need to have consensus from
others (Debian, Chrome, Yocto, etc).
Also I am not clear on what you'd want to do with UCM files, keep them
in alsa-conf but with firmware/topology somewhere else?
-Pierre
More information about the Sound-open-firmware
mailing list