Re: [PULL] ath11k firmware 20211223

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:26:43 +0200,
Kalle Valo wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 17:14:30 +0100,
> > Jouni Malinen wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:04:26AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:50 PM Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi> wrote:
> >> > > Would the following in WHENCE work for you?
> >> > >
> >> > > Driver: ath11k - Qualcomm Technologies 802.11ax chipset support
> >> > >
> >> > > File: ath11k/IPQ6018/hw1.0/board-2.bin
> >> > > ...
> >> > > Version: WLAN.HK.2.1.0.1-01238-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-2
> >> > > Notice: ath11k/IPQ6018/hw1.0/Notice.txt
> >> > 
> >> > We'd have to teach copy-firmware.sh what to do with a "Notice:" key.
> >> > Is there a reason "File:" wouldn't work?  The intention is to install
> >> > the notices alongside the binaries, so that would accomplish it.
> >> 
> >> Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. From copying/installing/distribution
> >> view point, these can really be handled in the exact same way as the
> >> actual firmware binaries in practice.
> >> 
> >> > > In other words, there would be only a single "License:" line and one
> >> > > "Notice:" line for each firmware version? The license itself (i.e.,
> >> > > LICENSE.QualcommAtheros_ath10k) is same for all the versions while the
> >> > > set of notices (i.e., those notice.txt files) can be different based on
> >> > > what is included in the particular build.
> >> > 
> >> > Yes, that would help.  Would you be able to adjust the existing
> >> > entries for ath firmware in the same way?
> >> 
> >> Yes, I'll work with Kalle to update the existing ath* WLAN cases.
> >> 
> >> > > > > I'm still working on your other comment about notice.txt, will get back
> >> > > > > on that later.
> >> > >
> >> > > This part about clearly identifying the files should be clear now, but
> >> > > it would be good to resolve that part about the notice.txt files in
> >> > > general before sending out an updated pull request.
> >> > 
> >> > Given these were merged in the past, perhaps I'm being overly
> >> > pedantic.  If we can mark them as Files or Notices instead of
> >> > Licenses, I won't hold it up.  It leaves me slightly confused why
> >> > attribution files need to reference agreements with Qualcomm, splatter
> >> > Confidential and Proprietary throughout the file, and reference
> >> > COPYING and README in reference to GPLv2 when the BSD license was
> >> > clearly chosen.  Perhaps that could be cleaned up in the future.
> >> 
> >> Thanks. We'll remove most of the unnecessary information from the new
> >> notice.txt files and that should get rid of many of the potentially
> >> confusing parts. If that cleanup leaves something confusing in place,
> >> we are open to cleaning these up further in followup patches, but it
> >> would be nice to be able to get the updated versions into
> >> linux-firmware.git without much more additional delay and yes, this
> >> would be with the File: instead of Licence: entries for the notice.txt
> >> files.
> >
> > The problem of "File:" is that it's more or less intended to be
> > installed as the firmware files themselves, i.e. they are installed in
> > /lib/firmware/* that can be loaded to the kernel.  Putting such a
> > random (document) file there makes me a bit nervous.
> >
> > We may introduce another tag to list up misc document files
> > (e.g. "Doc:" or whatever)?  Distros can pick up them and put to the
> > appropriate places in the package, too.
> 
> What about "Notice:" which I proposed above? To me "Doc:" sounds like an
> optional file, which notice.txt files are not. That's why I prefer
> "Notice:".

Sure, it'd work, too.  Only a patch is missing :)


thanks,

Takashi