[PATCH RFC v2 0/4] wifi: ath10k: support board-specific firmware overrides

[Kalle Valo]

Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org> writes:

>> To be on the safe side using 'qcom-rb1' makes sense but on the other
>> hand that means we need to update linux-firmware (basically add a new
>> symlink) everytime a new product is added. But are there going to be
>> that many new ath10k based products?
>>
>> Using 'qcm2290' is easier because for a new product then there only
>> needs to be a change in DTS and no need to change anything
>> linux-firmware. But here the risk is that if there's actually two
>> different ath10k firmware branches for 'qcm2290'. If that ever happens
>> (I hope not) I guess we could solve that by adding new 'qcm2290-foo'
>> directory?
>>
>> But I don't really know, thoughts?
>
> After some thought, I'd suggest to follow approach taken by the rest
> of qcom firmware:

Can you provide pointers to those cases?

> put a default (accepted by non-secured hardware) firmware to SoC dir
> and then put a vendor-specific firmware into subdir. If any of such
> vendors appear, we might even implement structural fallback: first
> look into sdm845/Google/blueline, then in sdm845/Google, sdm845/ and
> finally just under hw1.0.

Honestly that looks quite compilicated compared to having just one
sub-directory. How will ath10k find the directory names (or I vendor and
model names) like 'Google' or 'blueline' in this example?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches