From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A115A0E4 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:39:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713357587; cv=none; b=Ey4wbvs6H0FY0OQ1J5lwk1oyXuXDsGnEb3vdvUcrjK1wLaxbJZrmrNbQ6rh9uWGOv63C2xSKYkA7kLVBGm4xWwhagweqeiNZV5VYoJQSp3WSMUvoBv6ZBGj8BJYsqNHLZa++dUjJhSnETbDEloK0x7yoh+b7Ggw08nOBfjNSHyY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713357587; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cC1J7hdUzg+z+IoiyOESnA1UndoqpxLHI9iR0fMudWg=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=CiM3PmrsBx8oUA41JjVPQNLlDWcj+AxCct0srTeiMRjvSFyFZnJv/8cABpmpOOtyR9olfCVeGlH5QcveRfqeGCQm6KHJDINc9coO4+zrC2bMlGMcSSk2rtzN8HhEf169CCllfV2im99xj93Kl+MBwKJ6JibTRFqsrFYDotDd7z8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=Fqp1ncp5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="Fqp1ncp5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=cC1J7hdUzg+z+IoiyOESnA1UndoqpxLHI9iR0fMudWg=; t=1713357584; x=1714567184; b=Fqp1ncp5T8wVRNpJbBIKhRSr9oWHfeWfuikcr5hk6ofNLZF HGMQErNevkOiU0uHDkGCQSNAXOTqb7N6PBmW4b0PSGw03p2+/byw2RS+AtCozUPyltXGwA8SfWBFY irlpVuCt6ejMei1c24yc2LXRwsHs4HAkmJdbO1945nZ6xbQqocFexrhJeEANV6NThIxwBz3BsuKEA OETZ5m5FH2znfTITe0r97ev3fMJtB8uaQjqVUYz6/n//ofalyr7/m7vL4cQp6h9K2FDt/J/STdvC1 3W7vF0QKcJ11uedwtXk/2LV6yugCYaC2FA/RJdfGGsrK5+sEeloNQx34gROMc+/g==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rx4Zg-0000000AwrM-3A9w; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:39:41 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: putting future iwlwifi firmware into intel/ ? From: Johannes Berg To: Mario Limonciello , linux-firmware@kernel.org Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, miriam.rachel.korenblit@intel.com Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:39:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: <9aa64d50-cb4d-4118-bc27-86c23410ff8b@gmail.com> References: <9aa64d50-cb4d-4118-bc27-86c23410ff8b@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 07:31 -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: >=20 > On 4/17/24 06:18, Johannes Berg wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > Since I was just looking at some firmware related thing (files for the > > hardware that might be shared between Intel BT and WiFi), I noticed tha= t > > just over 30% of the files/dirs in the top-level firmware tree are > > iwlwifi-* files. > >=20 > > While we can't move the files that older drivers might consume, we coul= d > > e.g. change the driver to look up future versions/future hardware under > > intel/ instead? Would that be worth doing? > >=20 > > johannes > >=20 >=20 > How about moving them all now and then creating compat symlinks for=20 > older kernels at linux-firmware 'make install' time? >=20 Didn't realize there even was a 'make install' time :-) But then I guess it'd be simpler in the driver since we could just unconditionally add the intel/ prefix to the request_firmware call. johannes