From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@nokia.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@web.de>,
Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com>
Subject: Re: Firmware versioning best practices
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:33:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1254177211.21847.15.camel@mj> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43e72e890909281517k23abaf8dvd3e84837ce307429@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:17 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The ath_hif_usb driver will require the ar9271 firmware file but in
> the future an open firmware might become available. The ar9170 driver
> already is under the same situation already: a closed firmware is
> available but an open firmware can be used, only thing is ar9170 uses
> the same firmware name for both. We *could* change ar9170 to use the
> Intel practice of tagging a version at the end of each firmware
> release, like ar9170-1.fw but ar9170 originally was implemented with a
> 2-stage firmware requirement and so ar9170-1.fw is already taken.
Versions don't have to start with 1. We could start e.g. with 10.
> ar9170 still needs a solution for the different firmwares, once we
> start supporting the open firmware through some sort of release but
> I'd like to address ath_hif_usb now early so that we don't run into
> these snags and use some decent convention that is easy to follow.
We could use ar9170-apiversion-codeverestion.fw and link it to
ar9170-apiversion.fw. That is, if the open firmware version is 0.9.0
and it was compiled for API version 12, the filename would be
ar9170-12-0.9.0.fw and it could be linked to ar9170-12.fw.
> As I noted above, Intel seems to use the device-1.fw, device-2.fw
> naming convention. Is this the best approach? Or shall we have the
> same firmware filename and simply query the firmware for a map of
> capabilities? Any other ideas?
Distinctive names are good for simplicity of administration and the
capabilities are good for the sanity of the driver. But I don't see why
we cannot have both.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-28 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-28 22:17 Firmware versioning best practices Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-09-28 22:33 ` Pavel Roskin [this message]
2009-09-28 23:05 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-09-28 23:52 ` Marcel Holtmann
2009-09-29 0:42 ` John W. Linville
2010-02-20 2:14 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-09-29 6:59 ` Holger Schurig
2009-09-29 10:45 ` Tomas Winkler
2009-09-29 11:01 ` Holger Schurig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1254177211.21847.15.camel@mj \
--to=proski@gnu.org \
--cc=chunkeey@web.de \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=kalle.valo@nokia.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@gmail.com \
--cc=me@bobcopeland.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox