On 18/10/2022 15:38, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
@@ -174,6 +189,9 @@ static const struct sof_dev_desc rpls_desc = { [SOF_IPC] = "intel/sof", [SOF_INTEL_IPC4] = "intel/avs/rpl-s", }, + .default_lib_path = { + [SOF_INTEL_IPC4] = "intel/avs-lib/rpl-s", + }, .default_tplg_path = { [SOF_IPC] = "intel/sof-tplg", [SOF_INTEL_IPC4] = "intel/avs-tplg", @@ -202,6 +220,9 @@ static const struct sof_dev_desc rpl_desc = { [SOF_IPC] = "intel/sof", [SOF_INTEL_IPC4] = "intel/avs/rpl", }, + .default_lib_path = { + [SOF_INTEL_IPC4] = "intel/avs-lib/rpl", + }, .default_tplg_path = { [SOF_IPC] = "intel/sof-tplg", [SOF_INTEL_IPC4] = "intel/avs-tplg",
I'm not sure that I understand the rationale here, can't libraries be kept in the same directory as FW, as far as I know they are version locked to FW anyway.
During the internal review we arrived to this setup, to keep the libraries separate from the basefw binary. One of the reason is that SOF project is not likely not going to release external libraries, they are mostly vendor/product locked. To make the life easier for the vendors (and distributions, packagers) we concluded that it is better to keep them separate.
The option is there to specify custom path as well in case it is needed.
In avs driver when we decided on intel/avs/platform path we planned to keep FW related libaries there...
My initial approach was this as well, but after a long debate it got revised.
Also adding Czarek to CC.