From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Machata Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] mlxsw: Make MLXSW_SP1_FWREV_MINOR a hard requirement Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:14:06 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20180923144855.26444-1-idosch@mellanox.com> <20180923205809.GA30338@lunn.ch> <20180923215100.GA24149@splinter> <20180923220417.GA31923@lunn.ch> <20180923222839.GA26312@splinter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Andrew Lunn , Ido Schimmel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, jiri@mellanox.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com To: Ido Schimmel Return-path: Received: from mail-eopbgr80040.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.8.40]:56477 "EHLO EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725982AbeIXRQO (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 13:16:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180923222839.GA26312@splinter> (Ido Schimmel's message of "Mon, 24 Sep 2018 01:28:39 +0300") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ido Schimmel writes: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:04:17AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> But doesn't that mean you reflash the device with the minimum version, >> when in fact there could be a much newer version in /lib/firmware? > > No, because we always enforce the latest version we post to > linux-firmware. We try to keep firmware updates at a minimum, so if we > decided to post a new version it's either because the driver now > requires a feature from this version (which makes older versions > incompatible) or because a critical bug was fixed in that version. If you consider the case of an older driver and a recent FW update that the driver didn't know about, then yes, such FW would be ignored. You can flash it by hand of course (ethtool -f), as long as it's on the right branch. Petr