Re: Request to update 8852a firmware of rtw89 to v0.13.8.0

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>]

Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:

> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:38 AM Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
>> > [mailto:kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Kalle Valo
>
>> > It can create confusion to the users if during review we make changes
>> > how firmware files are handled. Some drivers have windows style .ini
>> > files which are not ok in an upstream driver, there could be changes in
>> > the file format etc.
>
> Sure, good point. I figured if there's no driver merged anywhere
> upstream, people (e.g., me) are taking their own life in their hands
> trying to utilize arbitrary versions from the mailing list. But I
> could see why you still don't want the potential mismatch.
>
>> > But I have no strong opinion here, my main motivation is just to try to
>> > keep things simple for maintaining the "interface" between
>> > linux-firmware and kernel wireless drivers. My preference is that the
>> > firmware files are ready for submission when a new driver is submitted
>> > for review, but the firmware files are submitted only after the driver
>> > is accepted.
>
> Ack, that's definitely important to me. The first versions had no
> publicly posted firmware, and at least one person (not me at the time)
> asked for it. My extension of that is that I don't want to
> _discourage_ vendors posting their firmware to public repos :)

Yeah, I don't want to discourage posting either. It's just that we don't
want to do it too early nor too late, which doesn't make it easy for
submitters :)

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches