<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - [REGRESSION][BISECT] Linux 4.8: SKL DMC Version is now 1.23?" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97182#c10">Comment # 10</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - [REGRESSION][BISECT] Linux 4.8: SKL DMC Version is now 1.23?" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97182">bug 97182</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:direx@betriebsdirektor.de" title="Direx <direx@betriebsdirektor.de>"> Direx</a> <pre>(In reply to Jani Nikula from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=97182#c9">comment #9</a>) > Perhaps. But the point is, that change has to happen via a kernel change > rather than arbitrarily on the linux-firmware update. > > Also, when there are kernels out there that expect 1.23, we can't just drop > 1.23 from linux-firmware. Fair enough. But the latest firmware is symlinked via skl_dmc_ver1.bin anyway, so a later firmware version should not be rejected by the kernel. 4aa7fb9c, which also introduced the version pinning, got rid of loading by symlink and forced firmware loading via real filename. In this case all firmware files should be present in linux-firmware. But if the kernel loads the firmware by the skl_dmc_ver1 symlink (which is the case right now again), then there is no point in keeping multiple FW releases in linux-firmware.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>