Re: [alsa-devel] Merging the new firmware files for CA0132 into alsa-firmware
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
Jaroslav
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:39 AM Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
Jaroslav
I have some firmware I need to add for the RT5677, should I also just add this to alsa-firmware instead of straight into linux-firmware?
-- Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
On Tue, 28 May 2019 18:46:25 +0200, Curtis Malainey wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:39 AM Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
JaroslavI have some firmware I need to add for the RT5677, should I also just add this to alsa-firmware instead of straight into linux-firmware?
The best would be to linux-firmware tree. We can put to alsa-firmware repo as a stop-gap, e.g. if it's difficult by some reason or if it takes too long, though.
thanks,
Takashi
On 5/28/19 11:38 AM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
for SOF there are 4 cases
1. developers/integrators build from scratch themselves from the public tree. 2. integrators build from scratch with their own secret sauce added. 3. distros want a binary since they don't want to build from source and/or don't have access to all the DSP tools 4. distros needs a binary signed with the Intel production key (e.g. to run on devices initially designed for Windows).
So far we were mostly dealing with case 1. Case 2 is allowed by the SOF permissive license and there's no need to look into this. We are planning releases for the last two cases, with a cadence aligned with kernel updates. It's not fully clear to me if the linux-firmware tree is the 'right' solution since ideally we'd want to have firmware, topology and UCM files released at the same time.
I believe that we need to discuss this more.
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 18:59 Pierre-Louis Bossart napsal(a):
On 5/28/19 11:38 AM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
for SOF there are 4 cases
- developers/integrators build from scratch themselves from the public
tree. 2. integrators build from scratch with their own secret sauce added. 3. distros want a binary since they don't want to build from source and/or don't have access to all the DSP tools 4. distros needs a binary signed with the Intel production key (e.g. to run on devices initially designed for Windows).
Do you mean that the firmware should be signed because the hardware is doing a check, if the hardware vendor enables it and rejects the unsigned binaries?
So far we were mostly dealing with case 1. Case 2 is allowed by the SOF permissive license and there's no need to look into this. We are planning releases for the last two cases, with a cadence aligned with kernel updates. It's not fully clear to me if the linux-firmware tree is the 'right' solution since ideally we'd want to have firmware, topology and UCM files released at the same time.
Do you plan to create a new package for this? I can eventually offer the space / docker build system on the ALSA server, if you like. The github releases work fine, too. The question is, if it's the right way. It seems that the firmware/topology files are read-only chunks used by the driver (standard usage) and the UCM config is for alsa-lib (the user space). It might make probably sense to add compatibility IDs to link/check the correct parts together at runtime and keep the standard (binary) code distribution for the most of users (linux-firmware / alsa-lib).
Speaking for distributions, we need to correctly identify the driver which will load the proper firmware files. From notes posted to the alsa-devel ML, it seems that there are three drivers for similar hardware (sound bridges) now and it is not easy to identify the proper driver, because the similar PCI ID is registered in all of them:
1) legacy HDA 2) sound/soc/intel 3) sound/soc/sof/intel
Do not forget that the distributions include all driver modules in their universal kernels. It seems like a problem for the Intel hardware at the moment. Perhaps, you may give us some recommendations / hints.
Totaly another topic is the on-demand installation of firmware files (and eventually ALSA configuration files). The linux-firmware package has over 180MB now and it's growing. It makes sense to install only useable firmware files - ommit the files for hardware / drivers which are not detected and used. It's probably a topic for linux-firmware rather then the ALSA project.
Jaroslav
On 5/28/19 2:15 PM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
I believe that we need to discuss this more.
Yep, absolutely!
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 18:59 Pierre-Louis Bossart napsal(a):
On 5/28/19 11:38 AM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
for SOF there are 4 cases
- developers/integrators build from scratch themselves from the public
tree. 2. integrators build from scratch with their own secret sauce added. 3. distros want a binary since they don't want to build from source and/or don't have access to all the DSP tools 4. distros needs a binary signed with the Intel production key (e.g. to run on devices initially designed for Windows).
Do you mean that the firmware should be signed because the hardware is doing a check, if the hardware vendor enables it and rejects the unsigned binaries?
It depends on the platforms. Baytrail/Cherrytrail/Broadwell don't need any signature. Starting with Skylake, the firmware is authenticated and the DSP will not boot unless it's signed with the relevant key, but different platforms chose different protections. Most of the Windows platforms use a strong authentication based on a non-public 'production key', which prevents people from installing their own firmware. Other solutions such as Up Squared boards or 2019 Chromebooks use a public key that is already part of the SOF tree. Unfortunately I didn't find a way to detect which key is used, and it's not wise to try multiple keys since it adds a lot of latency on startup, so we are leaning to use DMI-based quirks to detect which key is used by what.
So far we were mostly dealing with case 1. Case 2 is allowed by the SOF permissive license and there's no need to look into this. We are planning releases for the last two cases, with a cadence aligned with kernel updates. It's not fully clear to me if the linux-firmware tree is the 'right' solution since ideally we'd want to have firmware, topology and UCM files released at the same time.
Do you plan to create a new package for this? I can eventually offer the space / docker build system on the ALSA server, if you like. The github releases work fine, too. The question is, if it's the right way. It seems that the firmware/topology files are read-only chunks used by the driver (standard usage) and the UCM config is for alsa-lib (the user space). It might make probably sense to add compatibility IDs to link/check the correct parts together at runtime and keep the standard (binary) code distribution for the most of users (linux-firmware / alsa-lib).
There is a connection mostly between topology and UCM: the device numbers used for the PCM streams have to match. If you add/remove a stream in the topology, then UCM will use numbers that aren't quite right. Same if you have a volume control used in UCM, you need to make sure that volume control is actually part of the topology.
In the past, we discussed about moving UCM files and topology out of the alsa-lib umbrella (and clarify what the license is for these configuration files), it's probably a good time to revisit this.
Speaking for distributions, we need to correctly identify the driver which will load the proper firmware files. From notes posted to the alsa-devel ML, it seems that there are three drivers for similar hardware (sound bridges) now and it is not easy to identify the proper driver, because the similar PCI ID is registered in all of them:
- legacy HDA
- sound/soc/intel
- sound/soc/sof/intel
Do not forget that the distributions include all driver modules in their universal kernels. It seems like a problem for the Intel hardware at the moment. Perhaps, you may give us some recommendations / hints.
Yes, I've started working on this, it's part of the same "distro enabling" discussion. In most of the cases, the legacy HDaudio driver can be used, unless there are DMICs attached. I submitted an RFC to try to add an auto-detection. I also added a build-time exclusion between SOF and SST drivers, and a smarter run-time detection I am still working on.
Totaly another topic is the on-demand installation of firmware files (and eventually ALSA configuration files). The linux-firmware package has over 180MB now and it's growing. It makes sense to install only useable firmware files - ommit the files for hardware / drivers which are not detected and used. It's probably a topic for linux-firmware rather then the ALSA project.
Indeed, for SOF we already have 6 or 7 firmwares for different SOCs and all the possible topologies.
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 23:32 Pierre-Louis Bossart napsal(a):
On 5/28/19 2:15 PM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
I believe that we need to discuss this more.
Yep, absolutely!
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 18:59 Pierre-Louis Bossart napsal(a):
On 5/28/19 11:38 AM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
for SOF there are 4 cases
- developers/integrators build from scratch themselves from the public
tree. 2. integrators build from scratch with their own secret sauce added. 3. distros want a binary since they don't want to build from source and/or don't have access to all the DSP tools 4. distros needs a binary signed with the Intel production key (e.g. to run on devices initially designed for Windows).
Do you mean that the firmware should be signed because the hardware is doing a check, if the hardware vendor enables it and rejects the unsigned binaries?
It depends on the platforms. Baytrail/Cherrytrail/Broadwell don't need any signature. Starting with Skylake, the firmware is authenticated and the DSP will not boot unless it's signed with the relevant key, but different platforms chose different protections. Most of the Windows platforms use a strong authentication based on a non-public 'production key', which prevents people from installing their own firmware. Other solutions such as Up Squared boards or 2019 Chromebooks use a public key that is already part of the SOF tree. Unfortunately I didn't find a way to detect which key is used, and it's not wise to try multiple keys since it adds a lot of latency on startup, so we are leaning to use DMI-based quirks to detect which key is used by what.
Any ETA when then signed firmware will be available?
So far we were mostly dealing with case 1. Case 2 is allowed by the SOF permissive license and there's no need to look into this. We are planning releases for the last two cases, with a cadence aligned with kernel updates. It's not fully clear to me if the linux-firmware tree is the 'right' solution since ideally we'd want to have firmware, topology and UCM files released at the same time.
Do you plan to create a new package for this? I can eventually offer the space / docker build system on the ALSA server, if you like. The github releases work fine, too. The question is, if it's the right way. It seems that the firmware/topology files are read-only chunks used by the driver (standard usage) and the UCM config is for alsa-lib (the user space). It might make probably sense to add compatibility IDs to link/check the correct parts together at runtime and keep the standard (binary) code distribution for the most of users (linux-firmware / alsa-lib).
There is a connection mostly between topology and UCM: the device numbers used for the PCM streams have to match. If you add/remove a stream in the topology, then UCM will use numbers that aren't quite right. Same if you have a volume control used in UCM, you need to make sure that volume control is actually part of the topology.
In the past, we discussed about moving UCM files and topology out of the alsa-lib umbrella (and clarify what the license is for these configuration files), it's probably a good time to revisit this.
It is also the packaging issue. This situation complicates the package dependency tree. Basically, it might not be ideal to force users to install extra package to support the specific hardware platform with fw/ucm/tplg files. On the other side, there is no reason to have those bits installed on system where the hardware does not exist. There should be an automatic way to install the required bits on demand in the distribution in my opinion. I know, it's not your issue.
I see those ways:
1) package everything hw specific to one package (fw/ucm/tplg), let distros to handle the automatic installation when the hardware is detected or the integration to the current alsa-lib/linux-firmware packages to avoid on-demand installation
2) use some versioning / linking IDs for the firmware/topology/ucm, so we can have more topology/ucm files for one hardware; the driver can use the component field in the ALSA's control interface to notify the user space which firmware / topology was loaded, so the correct UCM files can be used
Speaking for distributions, we need to correctly identify the driver which will load the proper firmware files. From notes posted to the alsa-devel ML, it seems that there are three drivers for similar hardware (sound bridges) now and it is not easy to identify the proper driver, because the similar PCI ID is registered in all of them:
- legacy HDA
- sound/soc/intel
- sound/soc/sof/intel
Do not forget that the distributions include all driver modules in their universal kernels. It seems like a problem for the Intel hardware at the moment. Perhaps, you may give us some recommendations / hints.
Yes, I've started working on this, it's part of the same "distro enabling" discussion. In most of the cases, the legacy HDaudio driver can be used, unless there are DMICs attached. I submitted an RFC to try to add an auto-detection. I also added a build-time exclusion between SOF and SST drivers, and a smarter run-time detection I am still working on.
Great. Thanks. It seems that the DMIC support is sensitive for the hardware vendors now.
Jaroslav
The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
for SOF there are 4 cases
- developers/integrators build from scratch themselves from the public
tree. 2. integrators build from scratch with their own secret sauce added. 3. distros want a binary since they don't want to build from source and/or don't have access to all the DSP tools 4. distros needs a binary signed with the Intel production key (e.g. to run on devices initially designed for Windows).
Do you mean that the firmware should be signed because the hardware is doing a check, if the hardware vendor enables it and rejects the unsigned binaries?
It depends on the platforms. Baytrail/Cherrytrail/Broadwell don't need any signature. Starting with Skylake, the firmware is authenticated and the DSP will not boot unless it's signed with the relevant key, but different platforms chose different protections. Most of the Windows platforms use a strong authentication based on a non-public 'production key', which prevents people from installing their own firmware. Other solutions such as Up Squared boards or 2019 Chromebooks use a public key that is already part of the SOF tree. Unfortunately I didn't find a way to detect which key is used, and it's not wise to try multiple keys since it adds a lot of latency on startup, so we are leaning to use DMI-based quirks to detect which key is used by what.
Any ETA when then signed firmware will be available?
it's being productized as we speak and it's my understanding that SOF 1.3 will provide a signed firmware for recent chipsets.
So far we were mostly dealing with case 1. Case 2 is allowed by the SOF permissive license and there's no need to look into this. We are planning releases for the last two cases, with a cadence aligned with kernel updates. It's not fully clear to me if the linux-firmware tree is the 'right' solution since ideally we'd want to have firmware, topology and UCM files released at the same time.
Do you plan to create a new package for this? I can eventually offer the space / docker build system on the ALSA server, if you like. The github releases work fine, too. The question is, if it's the right way. It seems that the firmware/topology files are read-only chunks used by the driver (standard usage) and the UCM config is for alsa-lib (the user space). It might make probably sense to add compatibility IDs to link/check the correct parts together at runtime and keep the standard (binary) code distribution for the most of users (linux-firmware / alsa-lib).
There is a connection mostly between topology and UCM: the device numbers used for the PCM streams have to match. If you add/remove a stream in the topology, then UCM will use numbers that aren't quite right. Same if you have a volume control used in UCM, you need to make sure that volume control is actually part of the topology.
In the past, we discussed about moving UCM files and topology out of the alsa-lib umbrella (and clarify what the license is for these configuration files), it's probably a good time to revisit this.
It is also the packaging issue. This situation complicates the package dependency tree. Basically, it might not be ideal to force users to install extra package to support the specific hardware platform with fw/ucm/tplg files. On the other side, there is no reason to have those bits installed on system where the hardware does not exist. There should be an automatic way to install the required bits on demand in the distribution in my opinion. I know, it's not your issue.
I see those ways:
- package everything hw specific to one package (fw/ucm/tplg), let distros to
handle the automatic installation when the hardware is detected or the integration to the current alsa-lib/linux-firmware packages to avoid on-demand installation
- use some versioning / linking IDs for the firmware/topology/ucm, so we can
have more topology/ucm files for one hardware; the driver can use the component field in the ALSA's control interface to notify the user space which firmware / topology was loaded, so the correct UCM files can be used
Unfortunately that would not work. The UCM file needs to be aligned with the topology but also with the hardware peripherals used. The topology file only describes the DSP graph, all the way from PCM streams to DAIs. The platform hardware can be very different even when you use the same topology file. A simple example is that some platforms have a single speaker or others two. The mics may be analog or digital. That hardware-level information that UCM needs to know is not discoverable and we have to rely on DMI-based quirks to set a long name. Knowing which topology file was used will not help. Even finding out which topology file is needed is not obvious. We currently use the codec ACPI ID as a key to look-up a set of static tables to figure out which firmware and topology files need to be used, but it's likely we will have multiple platforms which will end-up using the same generic topology even though they'd need a different one to account for form-factor or acoustics. Again we will have to use quirks here.
Speaking for distributions, we need to correctly identify the driver which will load the proper firmware files. From notes posted to the alsa-devel ML, it seems that there are three drivers for similar hardware (sound bridges) now and it is not easy to identify the proper driver, because the similar PCI ID is registered in all of them:
- legacy HDA
- sound/soc/intel
- sound/soc/sof/intel
Do not forget that the distributions include all driver modules in their universal kernels. It seems like a problem for the Intel hardware at the moment. Perhaps, you may give us some recommendations / hints.
Yes, I've started working on this, it's part of the same "distro enabling" discussion. In most of the cases, the legacy HDaudio driver can be used, unless there are DMICs attached. I submitted an RFC to try to add an auto-detection. I also added a build-time exclusion between SOF and SST drivers, and a smarter run-time detection I am still working on.
Great. Thanks. It seems that the DMIC support is sensitive for the hardware vendors now.
Indeed, the combination of HDAudio codecs+ DMIC keeps most of the SOF team busy at the moment.
Dne 30. 05. 19 v 13:21 Pierre-Louis Bossart napsal(a):
The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
for SOF there are 4 cases
- developers/integrators build from scratch themselves from the public
tree. 2. integrators build from scratch with their own secret sauce added. 3. distros want a binary since they don't want to build from source and/or don't have access to all the DSP tools 4. distros needs a binary signed with the Intel production key (e.g. to run on devices initially designed for Windows).
Do you mean that the firmware should be signed because the hardware is doing a check, if the hardware vendor enables it and rejects the unsigned binaries?
It depends on the platforms. Baytrail/Cherrytrail/Broadwell don't need any signature. Starting with Skylake, the firmware is authenticated and the DSP will not boot unless it's signed with the relevant key, but different platforms chose different protections. Most of the Windows platforms use a strong authentication based on a non-public 'production key', which prevents people from installing their own firmware. Other solutions such as Up Squared boards or 2019 Chromebooks use a public key that is already part of the SOF tree. Unfortunately I didn't find a way to detect which key is used, and it's not wise to try multiple keys since it adds a lot of latency on startup, so we are leaning to use DMI-based quirks to detect which key is used by what.
Any ETA when then signed firmware will be available?
it's being productized as we speak and it's my understanding that SOF 1.3 will provide a signed firmware for recent chipsets.
So far we were mostly dealing with case 1. Case 2 is allowed by the SOF permissive license and there's no need to look into this. We are planning releases for the last two cases, with a cadence aligned with kernel updates. It's not fully clear to me if the linux-firmware tree is the 'right' solution since ideally we'd want to have firmware, topology and UCM files released at the same time.
Do you plan to create a new package for this? I can eventually offer the space / docker build system on the ALSA server, if you like. The github releases work fine, too. The question is, if it's the right way. It seems that the firmware/topology files are read-only chunks used by the driver (standard usage) and the UCM config is for alsa-lib (the user space). It might make probably sense to add compatibility IDs to link/check the correct parts together at runtime and keep the standard (binary) code distribution for the most of users (linux-firmware / alsa-lib).
There is a connection mostly between topology and UCM: the device numbers used for the PCM streams have to match. If you add/remove a stream in the topology, then UCM will use numbers that aren't quite right. Same if you have a volume control used in UCM, you need to make sure that volume control is actually part of the topology.
In the past, we discussed about moving UCM files and topology out of the alsa-lib umbrella (and clarify what the license is for these configuration files), it's probably a good time to revisit this.
It is also the packaging issue. This situation complicates the package dependency tree. Basically, it might not be ideal to force users to install extra package to support the specific hardware platform with fw/ucm/tplg files. On the other side, there is no reason to have those bits installed on system where the hardware does not exist. There should be an automatic way to install the required bits on demand in the distribution in my opinion. I know, it's not your issue.
I see those ways:
- package everything hw specific to one package (fw/ucm/tplg), let distros to
handle the automatic installation when the hardware is detected or the integration to the current alsa-lib/linux-firmware packages to avoid on-demand installation
- use some versioning / linking IDs for the firmware/topology/ucm, so we can
have more topology/ucm files for one hardware; the driver can use the component field in the ALSA's control interface to notify the user space which firmware / topology was loaded, so the correct UCM files can be used
Unfortunately that would not work. The UCM file needs to be aligned with the topology but also with the hardware peripherals used. The topology file only describes the DSP graph, all the way from PCM streams to DAIs. The platform hardware can be very different even when you use the same topology file. A simple example is that some platforms have a single speaker or others two. The mics may be analog or digital. That hardware-level information that UCM needs to know is not discoverable and we have to rely on DMI-based quirks to set a long name. Knowing which topology file was used will not help. Even finding out which topology file is needed is not obvious. We currently use the codec ACPI ID as a key to look-up a set of static tables to figure out which firmware and topology files need to be used, but it's likely we will have multiple platforms which will end-up using the same generic topology even though they'd need a different one to account for form-factor or acoustics. Again we will have to use quirks here.
I think that we're talking about different components. We have snd_component_add() function in the ALSA kernel core interface which can send any ASCII identification of used components to the user space (ALSA card level). So the driver can detect and describe the hardware in a more verbose way. We can use this string later in alsa-lib/ucm and load and use the proper UCM config based on the driver detection. So you may use quirks in the driver, compose the runtime ASCII component list and let alsa-lib to choose the right UCM config.
Jaroslav
On Tue, 28 May 2019 18:38:48 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
OK, now pushed to alsa-firmware git repo.
BTW, the situation is slightly different from SOF. At this time, the problem was that it's been submitted by a third person.
thanks,
Takashi
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 19:47 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
On Tue, 28 May 2019 18:38:48 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
OK, now pushed to alsa-firmware git repo.
BTW, the situation is slightly different from SOF. At this time, the problem was that it's been submitted by a third person.
Ok, so we don't have a licence for those files? Connor, have you tried to contact Creative for a permission to use/distribute those files?
Jaroslav
Yes, I did end up getting permission from Creative themselves to redistribute the files. That was back in November of 2018.
I also asked them to email Takashi Iwai to confirm, which I think they ended up doing.
My contact within Creative has not responded since December of 2018, when I asked for a name to go with the email he told me to use for the sign-off, and I think that was why the Linux firmware people weren't willing to accept it.
If you need any more information, let me know.
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:19 PM Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 19:47 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
On Tue, 28 May 2019 18:38:48 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
OK, now pushed to alsa-firmware git repo.
BTW, the situation is slightly different from SOF. At this time, the problem was that it's been submitted by a third person.
Ok, so we don't have a licence for those files? Connor, have you tried to contact Creative for a permission to use/distribute those files?
Jaroslav-- Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.
On Tue, 28 May 2019 21:24:39 +0200, Connor McAdams wrote:
Yes, I did end up getting permission from Creative themselves to redistribute the files. That was back in November of 2018.
I also asked them to email Takashi Iwai to confirm, which I think they ended up doing.
My contact within Creative has not responded since December of 2018, when I asked for a name to go with the email he told me to use for the sign-off, and I think that was why the Linux firmware people weren't willing to accept it.
Right, basically these two files align with the already existing other ca0132 firmware files in the repo. But the problem was just that the submitter was the third person, which is quite unusual.
Takashi
If you need any more information, let me know.
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:19 PM Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 19:47 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
On Tue, 28 May 2019 18:38:48 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
OK, now pushed to alsa-firmware git repo.
BTW, the situation is slightly different from SOF. At this time, the problem was that it's been submitted by a third person.
Ok, so we don't have a licence for those files? Connor, have you tried to contact Creative for a permission to use/distribute those files?
Jaroslav-- Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 21:37 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
On Tue, 28 May 2019 21:24:39 +0200, Connor McAdams wrote:
Yes, I did end up getting permission from Creative themselves to redistribute the files. That was back in November of 2018.
I also asked them to email Takashi Iwai to confirm, which I think they ended up doing.
My contact within Creative has not responded since December of 2018, when I asked for a name to go with the email he told me to use for the sign-off, and I think that was why the Linux firmware people weren't willing to accept it.
Right, basically these two files align with the already existing other ca0132 firmware files in the repo. But the problem was just that the submitter was the third person, which is quite unusual.
Ok, thanks. It might make sense to indicate this in the commit message (clarify the licence - use forced push, if you like).
Jaroslav
Takashi
If you need any more information, let me know.
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:19 PM Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 19:47 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
On Tue, 28 May 2019 18:38:48 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 16:54 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
Hi,
it seems that Connor's previous attempt to put a couple of ca0132 firmware files into linux-firmware tree didn't go through, unfortunately. And now I'm thinking of taking them into alsa-firmware package as a stop-gap. We already distribute other ca0132 firmware files, so the addition shouldn't be a big problem.
Jaroslav, what do you think?
No problem. The same situation is for the SoC SOF firmware files (drivers are in kernel, firmware files are missing). Perhaps, we can release those files quickly in alsa-firmware and then migrate them slowly to linux-firmware.
OK, now pushed to alsa-firmware git repo.
BTW, the situation is slightly different from SOF. At this time, the problem was that it's been submitted by a third person.
Ok, so we don't have a licence for those files? Connor, have you tried to contact Creative for a permission to use/distribute those files?
Jaroslav-- Jaroslav Kysela perex@perex.cz Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.
On Tue, 28 May 2019 21:46:35 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
Dne 28. 05. 19 v 21:37 Takashi Iwai napsal(a):
On Tue, 28 May 2019 21:24:39 +0200, Connor McAdams wrote:
Yes, I did end up getting permission from Creative themselves to redistribute the files. That was back in November of 2018.
I also asked them to email Takashi Iwai to confirm, which I think they ended up doing.
My contact within Creative has not responded since December of 2018, when I asked for a name to go with the email he told me to use for the sign-off, and I think that was why the Linux firmware people weren't willing to accept it.
Right, basically these two files align with the already existing other ca0132 firmware files in the repo. But the problem was just that the submitter was the third person, which is quite unusual.
Ok, thanks. It might make sense to indicate this in the commit message (clarify the licence - use forced push, if you like).
OK, done.
thanks,
Takashi
participants (5)
-
Connor McAdams -
Curtis Malainey -
Jaroslav Kysela -
Pierre-Louis Bossart -
Takashi Iwai