Re: [Sound-open-firmware] Signed firmware availability for kbl/cnl

[Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:24 -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > Would we also use semantic versioning to align the UCM with the
> > > topology and FW ? Currently we use semantic versioning for
> > > topology and
> > > FW.
> > 
> > If we have the versions exported to ther user space, the UCM
> > configuration
> > loader / parser can use this information to select or verify the
> > right UCM
> > configuration. The semantic versioning in UCM files sounds good to
> > me, too.
> 
> My understanding semantic versioning is that it provides means to
> handle 
> minor differences where a new capability is ignored in backwards 
> compatible ways. This is what we use for SOF structures between
> driver 
> and firmware, new fields might be added but used or not depending on 
> versions.
> 
> For UCM, the interaction with other layers is limited to stream
> numbers 
> and control names, so I am not sure what semantic versioning and 
> backwards compatibility would mean here? I am all for it, but I
> don't 
> get how it would work.
> 

My thinking here was to try and track the FW component kcontrol
surfaces for UCM. But I thought some more about it and it's better to
track using the single TPLG + UCM repo method to ensure alignment
between UCM and TPLGs.

Liam