Liam Girdwood (1): sof: Add Intel SOF V1.3 release firmware binaries.
LICENCE.sof | 1090 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Humm, that LICENSE file needs to be double-checked. Is there any reason why the text of this LICENSE.sof is different the usual text, e.g. from the LICENSE.adsp_sst?
LICENCE.adsp_sst is for the closed source firmware and LICENCE.sof is for SOF. The key difference is the removal of Intel binary FW licence and addition of BSD 3c, MIT, ISC and BSD 2c from SOF LICENCE file. Both files are the same wrt newlib.
I would kindly ask that you run this by legal.
The BSD license is provided for the source files, it's a stretch to say that the license extends to binaries without a statement that says that the binary firmware is only made of those source files, unmodified and without proprietary extensions. And to the best of my knowledge the newlib dependencies do not apply when compiling with XCC.
- No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this
software is permitted.
I'm not following why we need the reverse engineering conditions for opensource binaries.
me neither, that's why I stated that the model has to be different from SST.
and the DISCLAIMER part, both of which seem pretty important to me.
Disclaimer is in BSD 3 clause and MIT licence - exact same as the sources.
Maybe I am splitting hair, but I'd like a professional opinion on that license file. Better safe than sorry. I had GKH tell me on Friday to fix a (c) 2017-19 and use (c) 2017-2019...
IANAL, but seeing only a patent clause looks odd. There should be a mention of redistribution and a clear disclaimer (not sure about the reverse engineering parts since the code is available it makes no sense).
Patent clause is exactly the same as SST FW.
WHENCE | 33 + intel/sof/apl/intel/sof-apl-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 270336 bytes intel/sof/bdw/sof-bdw-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 100144 bytes intel/sof/byt/sof-byt-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 89668 bytes intel/sof/cht/sof-cht-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 90484 bytes intel/sof/cnl/intel/sof-cnl-v1.3-6cc8da10.ri | Bin 0 -> 274432 bytes intel/sof/icl/intel/sof-icl-v1.3.ri | Bin 0 -> 278528 bytes
There are two types of platforms, the ones which require the Intel firmware to be signed with a private production key and the ones that are signed with the SOF community key.
if we have a single directory, then how do we deal with the two cases?
I've not yet upstreamed the community signed versions yet so everything is in the intel/sof/platform/key/ directory structure.
It's not even clear to me which of the two cases are handled here.
Intel signed binaries, since they are in intel/sof/platform/intel directory. Community signed will go in intel/sof/platform/community/ dir.
I don't understand what you're suggesting nor how it would work with the way the kernel deals with directories. I tried to explain that we need an intel/sof-production and intel/sof directories, each with generic names that are symlinked to another location. This helps if you want to build quirks that select one or the other capabilities by just changing the firmware directory prefix. Pointers below.
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/blob/9d7da69a1e85db2cdbbaae78dd7eda4e...
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/blob/9d7da69a1e85db2cdbbaae78dd7eda4e...
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/blob/9d7da69a1e85db2cdbbaae78dd7eda4e...
I guess we need to talk off-line since we are evidently not on the same page or something is missing for people to use this pull request.
intel/sof/sof-apl.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-bdw.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-byt.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-cht.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-cml.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-cnl.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-glk.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-icl.ri | 1 + intel/sof/sof-whl.ri | 1 +
unless I am missing something, we don't have any tables in the Linux kernel for the WHL and CML configurations, and IIRC we only generate sof-cnl.ri. Is there actually a user for sof-whl.ri and sof-cml.ri?
There are glk users hence the addition of whl and cml.
glk has nothing to do with whl and cml. Not sure if there is a typo or something I missed in your reply?