From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:40186 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754525Ab0BTLcT (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:32:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Firmware versioning best practices II From: David Woodhouse To: Johannes Berg Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless , Marcel Holtmann , Vipin Mehta In-Reply-To: <1266664247.11514.0.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <43e72e891002191823h3245bc0cn7a8745ae77409aa8@mail.gmail.com> <1266662106.1820.4034.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <1266663639.10357.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1266664166.1820.4165.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <1266664247.11514.0.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:32:15 +0000 Message-ID: <1266665535.1820.4238.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 12:10 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 11:09 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 12:00 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > That doesn't make much sense anyway. If the firmware filename is > > > foo-$APIVER-$CODEVER every code change would need a corresponding > > driver > > > change. If it is just foo-$APIVER then the $CODEVER can be embedded > > in > > > the firmware file and printed so you know which code you're using, > > but > > > if it doesn't influence the API I don't see why it should be part of > > the > > > filename? > > > > The idea is that just like with shared libraries, you have a symlink > > from the 'soname' foo-3.fw to the actual file foo-3-1.4.1.fw. > > Ah ok. I indeed do that manually with iwlwifi firmware :) > > > For shared libraries, it's easy to create those symlinks automatically > > using ldconfig. For firmware that doesn't really work though -- since > > the soname isn't encoded in the file like it is in ELF libraries. > > Right. Though I guess we could come up with a unified firmware wrapper > format that the firmware loader can unwrap. I suppose we could, but this seems like overkill to me. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation