[marc-hb]

This is required to combine platforms from v2.2 and v2.3 releases

Signed-off-by: Marc Herbert marc.herbert@intel.com

[mengdonglin]

@marc-hb Thank you! Tested and it works well with a mock v2.3.x folder for me.

[mengdonglin]

@marc-hb @keqiaozhang I have only one open but it's not a problem of this script itself.

Should we remove all *.ldc files from https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin/tree/main/v2.2.x/sof-v2.2/intel-signed for v2.2.2?

For v2.1.x and previous releases, we never put *.ldc file in intel-signed folder. Instead, both intel-signed and community share the same *.ldc in the parent directory.

But from v2.2, we have *.ldc files in both intel-signed and its parent directory. Only *.ldc in sof-v2.2 are targets of symbol links:
sof-bin/v2.2.x/sof-v2.2$ ll | grep ldc
lrwxrwxrwx sof-adl.ldc -> sof-tgl.ldc
lrwxrwxrwx sof-adl-s.ldc -> sof-tgl-h.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-apl.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-bdw.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-byt.ldc
lrwxrwxrwx sof-cfl.ldc -> sof-cnl.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-cht.ldc
lrwxrwxrwx sof-cml.ldc -> sof-cnl.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-cnl.ldc
lrwxrwxrwx sof-ehl.ldc -> sof-tgl.ldc
lrwxrwxrwx sof-glk.ldc -> sof-apl.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-icl.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-jsl.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-tgl-h.ldc
-rw-rw-r-- sof-tgl.ldc

For v2.3, we may only put *.ldc in sof-v2.3 as we did for v2.1.x before. But when we combine v2.3 and v2.2.2 with this script, those old v2.2.2 *.ldc files in intel-signed will be kept in the combined tar ball.

[mengdonglin]

Should we remove all *.ldc files from https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin/tree/main/v2.2.x/sof-v2.2/intel-signed for v2.2.2?

Anyway, this is not a big problem. We can keep these *.ldc files, because new v2.3 zephyr-based FW binaries won't need *.ldc for logging output.

[marc-hb]

Thanks @mengdonglin for the testing, much appreciated.

Also thanks for spotting the duplicate *.ldc files. I just submitted their removal in brand new PR #92

[mengdonglin]

@marc-hb Thank you for #92 :)

Two minor opens:

• Do we want to keep tarball_fw_versions.bash in the tar ball? Not sure if OSV(s) still need it after generating the tar ball.
• Can we also include version of the symbolic links *.ri and *.ldc in the manifest after combination?
  Now the manifest only includes the version of real *.ri and *.ldc files. We may also want to check if different versions of symbolic links are also combined as we expected.
  $vim manifest.txt
  v2.2 ./community/sof-apl.ri
  v2.2 ./community/sof-cnl.ri
  v2.2 ./community/sof-icl.ri
  v2.2 ./community/sof-jsl.ri
  v2.2 ./intel-signed/sof-apl.ri
  v2.2 ./intel-signed/sof-cnl.ri
  v2.2 ./intel-signed/sof-ehl.ri
  v2.2 ./intel-signed/sof-icl.ri
  v2.2 ./intel-signed/sof-jsl.ri
  v2.2 ./sof-apl.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-bdw.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-bdw.ri
  v2.2 ./sof-byt.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-byt.ri
  v2.2 ./sof-cht.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-cht.ri
  v2.2 ./sof-cnl.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-icl.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-jsl.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-tgl.ldc
  v2.2 ./sof-tgl-h.ldc
  v2.3 ./community/sof-tgl.ri
  v2.3 ./community/sof-tgl-h.ri
  v2.3 ./intel-signed/sof-adl.ri
  v2.3 ./intel-signed/sof-adl-s.ri
  v2.3 ./intel-signed/sof-tgl.ri
  v2.3 ./intel-signed/sof-tgl-h.ri

[marc-hb]

I got tired of manually inspecting tarballs after every .sh change so I submitted some automated tests, please review #93 first and then I will rebase this. Sorry for the delay.

[lgirdwood]

@marc-hb will this also work if we use a different FW name for v2.3 e.g sofz-tgl.ri and keep the default links pointing to the v2.2 release for TGL ?

[marc-hb]

Probably not as it is now... why would we change the firmware name to sofz-tgl.ri? The Linux kernel does not know anything about Zephyr, it will always be looking for the same filename. It only knows about IPC3 vs IPC4.

[mengdonglin]

@marc-hb will this also work if we use a different FW name for v2.3 e.g sofz-tgl.ri and keep the default links pointing to the v2.2 release for TGL ?

@lgirdwood @marc-hb If we want to use v2.2 as default for Linux distributions and use sofz-*.ri to name v2.3 Zephyr-buildings, we needn't add any symbolic links under v2.3.x/sof-v2.3 to sofz-*.ri in intel-signed directory. Thus this scripts can support combining v2.2 sof-*.ri and v2.3 sofz-*.ri, and keep the default links pointing to the v2.2 sof-*.ri files.

For people who want to try v2.3 sofz-*.ri, they can set fw_filename=sofz-<platform name>.ri in kernel parameter.

Did a quick test with v2.2 and a mock v2.3. The combined sof-bin-v2.3 will be like:
$tree .
├── community
│   ├── sof-adl.ri -> sof-tgl.ri
│   ├── sof-adl-s.ri -> sof-tgl-h.ri
│   ├── ...
│   ├── sof-tgl-h.ri
│   ├── sof-tgl.ri
│   ├── sofz-adl.ri -> sofz-tgl.ri
│   ├── sofz-adl-s.ri -> sofz-tgl-h.ri
│   ├── sofz-rpl.ri -> sofz-tgl.ri
│   ├── sofz-rpl-s.ri -> sofz-tgl-h.ri
│   ├── sofz-tgl-h.ri
│   └── sofz-tgl.ri
├── intel-signed
│   ├── sof-adl.ri
│   ├── sof-adl-s.ri
│   ├── ...
│   ├── sof-tgl-h.ri
│   ├── sof-tgl.ri
│   ├── sofz-adl.ri
│   ├── sofz-adl-s.ri
│   ├── sofz-rpl.ri -> sofz-adl.ri
│   ├── sofz-rpl-s.ri -> sofz-adl-s.ri
│   ├── sofz-tgl-h.ri
│   └── sofz-tgl.ri
├── ...
├── sof-adl.ldc -> sof-tgl.ldc
├── sof-adl.ri -> intel-signed/sof-adl.ri
├── sof-adl-s.ldc -> sof-tgl-h.ldc
├── sof-adl-s.ri -> intel-signed/sof-adl-s.ri
...

[lgirdwood]

│   ├── sofz-adl.ri -> sofz-tgl.ri
│   ├── sofz-adl-s.ri -> sofz-tgl-h.ri

We dont need the links as Zephyr option is "opt-in" i.e default will be the v2.2

[marc-hb]

Do we want to keep tarball_fw_versions.bash in the tar ball?

Fixed in last force push. More coming.

[mengdonglin]

│   ├── sofz-adl.ri -> sofz-tgl.ri
│   ├── sofz-adl-s.ri -> sofz-tgl-h.ri

We dont need the links as Zephyr option is "opt-in" i.e default will be the v2.2

@lgirdwood We have these links in community and intel-signed because the Zephyr-building FW binaries will be same for these platforms. Good to keep?

User will still use v2.2 XTOS intel-signed/sof-*.ri by default. Because all symbol links in the parent directory sof (to be /lib/firmware/intel/sof in Linux distribution) still point to v2.2 intel-signed/sof-*.ri:
sof
├── community
│   ├── ...
├── intel-signed
│   ├── ...
├── sof-adl.ri -> intel-signed/sof-adl.ri ... This is v2.2 intel-signed XTOS-building FW, not Zephyr-building FW.
├── sof-adl-s.ri -> intel-signed/sof-adl-s.ri
├── sof-tgl-h.ri -> intel-signed/sof-tgl-h.ri
└── sof-tgl.ri -> intel-signed/sof-tgl.ri
...

[marc-hb]

Can we also include version of the symbolic links *.ri and *.ldc in the manifest after combination?

Done + other sanity checks.

Also moved the top-level directory one level down for consistency and to ease combination with topologies.

[mengdonglin]

Can we also include version of the symbolic links *.ri and *.ldc in the manifest after combination?

Done + other sanity checks.

Also moved the top-level directory one level down for consistency and to ease combination with topologies.

@marc-hb Thank you! Tested and it looks really nice!

[lgirdwood]

│   ├── sofz-adl.ri -> sofz-tgl.ri
│   ├── sofz-adl-s.ri -> sofz-tgl-h.ri

We dont need the links as Zephyr option is "opt-in" i.e default will be the v2.2

@lgirdwood We have these links in community and intel-signed because the Zephyr-building FW binaries will be same for these platforms. Good to keep?

oh yes - good to keep, I did not see the z in the file name.

[marc-hb]

Latest version can combine anything and everything: sof-v1.2.3, tools-v4.5.6 and also sof-tplg.

Also added a test that provides a sample usage and corresponding output