Dne 09. 04. 21 v 9:39 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 20:51:41 +0200, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
When we have a common standard layer for the plug-and-play handling (udev), we should concentrate to allow changing / refining of this information there. Those strings are not used for anything else than the user space. So from my view, there's no reason to create another mechanism to handle the overrides. It should be a safe, fast, flexible and_optional_ solution. The udev can alter the sysfs attributes directly without any hassle with the file modifications or looking for another way to pass / store this information somewhere.
There's one part where I am lost.
The initial idea of udev what to modify kernel parameters to pick a different path for firmware/topology before probing the PCI driver. At
This may be a problematic point. The kernel cmdline cannot be modified from udev (as far as I know). The module parameters can be set using modprobe's config files or when loaded with sysfs attributes (/sys/module/*/parameters). Eventually, you can call the modprobe command with custom module parameters when the appropriate MODALIAS is probed.
Perhaps, I'm missing something here, too. Some example udev rules may help.
see the example shared by Curtis
SUBSYSTEM=="pci", ATTR{vendor}=="0x8086", ATTR{device}=="0xa0c8", ATTR{class}=="0x040100", ATTRS{[dmi/id]board_name}=="Eldrid", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe snd_sof_pci tplg_path=intel/sof-tplg/pdm1"
Those 'path' parameters would have to be set prior to creating the card, making them writable via sysfs would not work, the firmware and topology are already loaded and changing the paths would have no effect.
Couldn't the driver probe the firmware files with some device-specific string suffix at first? e.g. the driver can issue request_firmware() with $base_file-$dmi_board at first, then falls back to the generic $base_file. A similar method was already used in Broadcom WiFi driver.
Also, the driver may do request_firmware() with a fixed path for the custom firmware at first (e.g. "intel/sof-tplg-custom"); then a system integrator may set up a specific configuration even that doesn't match with DMI or whatever identifier.
And when we have two firmware files which differs just by functionality requested by user? Although your method will work, I won't close the possibility to configure everything in udev rather using a hard coded fw load scheme only.
Jaroslav