On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:00:54PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 22:40, Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:33:16PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
This quickly becomes overcomplicated. Some platforms use different firmware naming structure. Some firmware goes into a generic location and other files go into device-specific location. So having a generic helper doesn't really help.
That sounds like a job for symlinks surely?
Excuse me, but I don't understand the goal for such symlinks. In my opinion (and more importantly, in the opinion of qcom maintainers), firmware-name does the necessary job. It provides enough flexibility and doesn't require any additional dances around.
The goal is to avoid adding a Linux specific ABI if we don't need one, and to allow later adjustment of what's selected on the userspace side more easily (eg, if a more specific firwmare is found).