RE: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

RE: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

[Kamil Debski]

Hi Arun,

I asked you to put old and new v6 firmware in separate files.
You should also mention in the commit message that this new firmware
will not work with the s5p-mfc driver without the patch you recently
submitted to linux-media mailing list. Please also add a link to the
thread with the necessary patch.

In addition to the above I think a readme/description file should be
added to the s5p-mfc folder. The issue of firmware for v6 should be
explained, so that no one is surprised that something does not work.

Best wishes,
-- 
Kamil Debski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arun Kumar K [mailto:arunkk.samsung@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Arun
> Kumar K
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:45 AM
> To: dwmw2@infradead.org; ben@decadent.org.uk; linux-samsung-
> soc@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: k.debski@samsung.com; arunkk.samsung@gmail.com
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware
> 
> This is the newer version of s5p-mfc-v6.fw with many
> fixes and enhancements.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K <arun.kk@samsung.com>
> ---
>  s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw |  Bin 306312 -> 343756 bytes
>  1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw b/s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw
> index
> 2e1179fa6d227f1c5a23f78b4834be336e579f50..9d3345fbf4abb7ea7389816916d68
> 57d64732380 100644
> GIT binary patch
> literal 343756

[snip]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

[Arun Kumar K]

Hi Kamil,

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Arun,
>
> I asked you to put old and new v6 firmware in separate files.

But wont that require a different filename other than s5p-mfc-v6.fw?
But the driver still expects the same file name.
Can I put the new filename as s5p-mfc-v6-v2.fw and mention in the
README that the file has to be renamed to s5p-mfc-v6.fw to be used?

> You should also mention in the commit message that this new firmware
> will not work with the s5p-mfc driver without the patch you recently
> submitted to linux-media mailing list. Please also add a link to the
> thread with the necessary patch.

Ok will do that.

>
> In addition to the above I think a readme/description file should be
> added to the s5p-mfc folder. The issue of firmware for v6 should be
> explained, so that no one is surprised that something does not work.
>

Ok.

Regards
Arun

> Best wishes,
> --
> Kamil Debski
> Samsung R&D Institute Poland
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arun Kumar K [mailto:arunkk.samsung@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Arun
>> Kumar K
>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:45 AM
>> To: dwmw2@infradead.org; ben@decadent.org.uk; linux-samsung-
>> soc@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: k.debski@samsung.com; arunkk.samsung@gmail.com
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware
>>
>> This is the newer version of s5p-mfc-v6.fw with many
>> fixes and enhancements.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K <arun.kk@samsung.com>
>> ---
>>  s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw |  Bin 306312 -> 343756 bytes
>>  1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw b/s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw
>> index
>> 2e1179fa6d227f1c5a23f78b4834be336e579f50..9d3345fbf4abb7ea7389816916d68
>> 57d64732380 100644
>> GIT binary patch
>> literal 343756
>
> [snip]
>

RE: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

[Kamil Debski]

Hi,

----Original Message-----
> From: arunkk.samsung@gmail.com [mailto:arunkk.samsung@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Arun Kumar K
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:00 PM
> 
> Hi Kamil,
> 
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@samsung.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Arun,
> >
> > I asked you to put old and new v6 firmware in separate files.
> 
> But wont that require a different filename other than s5p-mfc-v6.fw?

Yes.

> But the driver still expects the same file name.
> Can I put the new filename as s5p-mfc-v6-v2.fw and mention in the
> README that the file has to be renamed to s5p-mfc-v6.fw to be used?

I think this is the way to go, because the new driver (with the patch)
will work with old firmware, while old driver (without the patch) will
not work with the new firmware.

> 
> > You should also mention in the commit message that this new firmware
> > will not work with the s5p-mfc driver without the patch you recently
> > submitted to linux-media mailing list. Please also add a link to the
> > thread with the necessary patch.
> 
> Ok will do that.
> 
> >
> > In addition to the above I think a readme/description file should be
> > added to the s5p-mfc folder. The issue of firmware for v6 should be
> > explained, so that no one is surprised that something does not work.
> >
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Regards
> Arun

Best wishes,
-- 
Kamil Debski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland

> 
> > Best wishes,
> > --
> > Kamil Debski
> > Samsung R&D Institute Poland
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Arun Kumar K [mailto:arunkk.samsung@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Arun Kumar K
> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:45 AM
> >> To: dwmw2@infradead.org; ben@decadent.org.uk; linux-samsung-
> >> soc@vger.kernel.org
> >> Cc: k.debski@samsung.com; arunkk.samsung@gmail.com
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware
> >>
> >> This is the newer version of s5p-mfc-v6.fw with many fixes and
> >> enhancements.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K <arun.kk@samsung.com>
> >> ---
> >>  s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw |  Bin 306312 -> 343756 bytes
> >>  1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw b/s5p-mfc/s5p-mfc-v6.fw index
> >>
> 2e1179fa6d227f1c5a23f78b4834be336e579f50..9d3345fbf4abb7ea7389816916d
> >> 68
> >> 57d64732380 100644
> >> GIT binary patch
> >> literal 343756
> >
> > [snip]
> >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Kamil, Arun,

On 16.05.2014 12:09, Kamil Debski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ----Original Message-----
>> From: arunkk.samsung@gmail.com [mailto:arunkk.samsung@gmail.com] On
>> Behalf Of Arun Kumar K
>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:00 PM
>>
>> Hi Kamil,
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Arun,
>>>
>>> I asked you to put old and new v6 firmware in separate files.
>>
>> But wont that require a different filename other than s5p-mfc-v6.fw?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> But the driver still expects the same file name.
>> Can I put the new filename as s5p-mfc-v6-v2.fw and mention in the
>> README that the file has to be renamed to s5p-mfc-v6.fw to be used?
> 
> I think this is the way to go, because the new driver (with the patch)
> will work with old firmware, while old driver (without the patch) will
> not work with the new firmware.
> 
>>
>>> You should also mention in the commit message that this new firmware
>>> will not work with the s5p-mfc driver without the patch you recently
>>> submitted to linux-media mailing list. Please also add a link to the
>>> thread with the necessary patch.
>>
>> Ok will do that.
>>
>>>
>>> In addition to the above I think a readme/description file should be
>>> added to the s5p-mfc folder. The issue of firmware for v6 should be
>>> explained, so that no one is surprised that something does not work.
>>>

May I suggest a little different solution?

Since to not break compatibility, support for both firmware versions is
needed in the driver anyway, why not simply make the new, incompatible
firmware always use a different filename.

Then let the driver try to load the new one first and if it fails then
load the old one? This would also let you get rid of that version check
by hardcoded date, as you would know which firmware type was found.

Best regards,
Tomasz

RE: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

[Kamil Debski]

Hi Tomasz, Arun,

> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:t.figa@samsung.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:22 PM
> 
> Hi Kamil, Arun,
> 
> On 16.05.2014 12:09, Kamil Debski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > ----Original Message-----
> >> From: arunkk.samsung@gmail.com [mailto:arunkk.samsung@gmail.com] On
> >> Behalf Of Arun Kumar K
> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:00 PM
> >>
> >> Hi Kamil,
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@samsung.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi Arun,
> >>>
> >>> I asked you to put old and new v6 firmware in separate files.
> >>
> >> But wont that require a different filename other than s5p-mfc-v6.fw?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> But the driver still expects the same file name.
> >> Can I put the new filename as s5p-mfc-v6-v2.fw and mention in the
> >> README that the file has to be renamed to s5p-mfc-v6.fw to be used?
> >
> > I think this is the way to go, because the new driver (with the patch)
> > will work with old firmware, while old driver (without the patch)
> will
> > not work with the new firmware.
> >
> >>
> >>> You should also mention in the commit message that this new
> firmware
> >>> will not work with the s5p-mfc driver without the patch you
> recently
> >>> submitted to linux-media mailing list. Please also add a link to
> the
> >>> thread with the necessary patch.
> >>
> >> Ok will do that.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In addition to the above I think a readme/description file should
> be
> >>> added to the s5p-mfc folder. The issue of firmware for v6 should be
> >>> explained, so that no one is surprised that something does not work.
> >>>
> 
> May I suggest a little different solution?
> 
> Since to not break compatibility, support for both firmware versions is
> needed in the driver anyway, why not simply make the new, incompatible
> firmware always use a different filename.
> 
> Then let the driver try to load the new one first and if it fails then
> load the old one? This would also let you get rid of that version check
> by hardcoded date, as you would know which firmware type was found.
> 

Tomasz, I really like your idea. I find it both simple and elegant.
This way there will be no need to rename the firmware file in the repo or
by the user, if the user wishes to use the new version.

Arun, what is your opinion? 

> Best regards,
> Tomasz

Best wishes,
-- 
Kamil Debski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland

Re: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

[Arun Kumar K]

Hi Kamil, Tomasz,

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Tomasz, Arun,
>
>> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:t.figa@samsung.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:22 PM
>>
>> Hi Kamil, Arun,
>>
>> On 16.05.2014 12:09, Kamil Debski wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > ----Original Message-----
>> >> From: arunkk.samsung@gmail.com [mailto:arunkk.samsung@gmail.com] On
>> >> Behalf Of Arun Kumar K
>> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:00 PM
>> >>
>> >> Hi Kamil,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@samsung.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Hi Arun,
>> >>>
>> >>> I asked you to put old and new v6 firmware in separate files.
>> >>
>> >> But wont that require a different filename other than s5p-mfc-v6.fw?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> >> But the driver still expects the same file name.
>> >> Can I put the new filename as s5p-mfc-v6-v2.fw and mention in the
>> >> README that the file has to be renamed to s5p-mfc-v6.fw to be used?
>> >
>> > I think this is the way to go, because the new driver (with the patch)
>> > will work with old firmware, while old driver (without the patch)
>> will
>> > not work with the new firmware.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> You should also mention in the commit message that this new
>> firmware
>> >>> will not work with the s5p-mfc driver without the patch you
>> recently
>> >>> submitted to linux-media mailing list. Please also add a link to
>> the
>> >>> thread with the necessary patch.
>> >>
>> >> Ok will do that.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> In addition to the above I think a readme/description file should
>> be
>> >>> added to the s5p-mfc folder. The issue of firmware for v6 should be
>> >>> explained, so that no one is surprised that something does not work.
>> >>>
>>
>> May I suggest a little different solution?
>>
>> Since to not break compatibility, support for both firmware versions is
>> needed in the driver anyway, why not simply make the new, incompatible
>> firmware always use a different filename.
>>
>> Then let the driver try to load the new one first and if it fails then
>> load the old one? This would also let you get rid of that version check
>> by hardcoded date, as you would know which firmware type was found.
>>
>
> Tomasz, I really like your idea. I find it both simple and elegant.
> This way there will be no need to rename the firmware file in the repo or
> by the user, if the user wishes to use the new version.
>
> Arun, what is your opinion?
>

Yes this seems like a better approach to me too.
With this the new FW used in older kernel issue is also resolved as the new
fw file will have a different name and is not accepted in old kernel.

Regards
Arun

>> Best regards,
>> Tomasz
>
> Best wishes,
> --
> Kamil Debski
> Samsung R&D Institute Poland
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 1/2] s5p-mfc: Update mfc-v6 firmware

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]

On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 15:12 +0530, Arun Kumar K wrote:
> Hi Kamil, Tomasz,
> 
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Kamil Debski <k.debski@samsung.com> wrote:
> > Hi Tomasz, Arun,
> >
> >> From: Tomasz Figa [mailto:t.figa@samsung.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:22 PM
[...]
> >> May I suggest a little different solution?
> >>
> >> Since to not break compatibility, support for both firmware versions is
> >> needed in the driver anyway, why not simply make the new, incompatible
> >> firmware always use a different filename.
> >>
> >> Then let the driver try to load the new one first and if it fails then
> >> load the old one? This would also let you get rid of that version check
> >> by hardcoded date, as you would know which firmware type was found.
> >>
> >
> > Tomasz, I really like your idea. I find it both simple and elegant.
> > This way there will be no need to rename the firmware file in the repo or
> > by the user, if the user wishes to use the new version.
> >
> > Arun, what is your opinion?
> >
> 
> Yes this seems like a better approach to me too.
> With this the new FW used in older kernel issue is also resolved as the new
> fw file will have a different name and is not accepted in old kernel.

This is the right way to do it.  New firmware files must not break old
drivers, as distributions and users will usually install everything from
linux-firmware without checking things like that.

If the new driver can work with the old firmware, that's a bonus, but
less important.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]