Re: [PATCH 12/19] ASoC: SOF: Intel: Set the default firmware library path for IPC4

[Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>]

On 2022-10-18 6:37 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 10/18/22 10:46, Cezary Rojewski wrote:

...

> We should not debate on this mailing list what can or cannot be
> released, not make any distinctions between Intel and others. The
> library handling mechanism is generic, who provides the libraries is
> irrelevant.

No problem, leaving this out of the discussion.

...

> You're assuming that it's the same exact set of binary libraries for all
> skews based on the same SOC.

In majority of cases since Broadwell, that's the reality though. While 
theory may say otherwise, we were (and still are) releasing 
generation-wide builds e.g.: SKL-based firmware package, TGL-based 
firmware package.

...

> That's not necessarily a valid assumption, it's perfectly possible that
> a specific OEM decides to allocate more budget for a specific feature
> and less for others, resulting in libraries that are recompiled,
> optimized or configured differently. The UUID is a weak notion here, as
> measured by the same UUID being used for different DSP generations.
> Nothing prevents someone from generating a slightly different library
> exposed with the same UUID.
> 
> We didn't want to restrict our partners and gave them with the ability
> to put both the base firmware and the libraries in different directories
> and overload the default path should they wish to do so. They could
> decide to point to the same directory if they wanted to. That's not our
> decision.
> 
> If you look at all recent evolutions, we initially introduced different
> paths for firmware, then topology, then firmware and topology names. The
> logic of adding more flexibility for library path follow the pattern of
> trying to avoid making assumptions we have to undo at a later point.

Thanks for the elaborate input. The evolution sound good, and is 
perfectly reasonable. My only feedback is - should we put everything 
under /intel directory? If all the paths can be customized, then the 
parent directory needs not to be the same for every firmware package 
regardless of its origin. It's counterintuitive, is it not?


Regards,
Czarek