Dne 07. 01. 20 v 16:30 Liam Girdwood napsal(a):
- Tanu
On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 10:46 +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote:
Is there a versioning scheme for linux-firmware and alsa-topology?
I'm assuming alsa-topology may follow alsa versioning ? But maybe best for Jaroslav to answer here.
Linux FW repo just has some tags for dates, but seems to be a monthly tag.
Jaroslav, IIUC you also proposed having the FW in the same repo as UCM, topology. What's the advantage of this over linux-firmware for RPM/deb packagers ?
I proposed to distribute the topology files with the firmware files. Thus put these non-user space things to linux-firmware and let UCM describe the rest.
The topology and firmware files are required to boot the hardware.
Pierre insists to distribute the topology files separately to allow customizations (not sure who are target users - OEMs?). My opinion is that if the auto-selection for any of firmware and topologies is missing on the kernel side, the topology separation is not required for the Linux mainstream. It would be sufficient to link to the sources in a documentation file in the linux-firmware tree. So the advanced users can work with it.
So my last advice was to push the topologies in the normalized .conf format to alsa-topology-conf repository and let the distributions to choose, if they'll put this to their linux-firmware packages or create a standalone package with topologies (which must be installed in the same way as linux-firmware anyway).
https://github.com/alsa-project/alsa-topology-conf/pull/1
For Fedora, I pack the firmware and topology files in the alsa-firmware package temporary, until we resolve this in upstream.
Btw, I'm open to whatever is easiest for everyone but I've never been a packager so I'm missing some background.
For the packager, the easiest method is to put everything except UCM to linux-firmware.
Jaroslav