Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #67220 > unrolled thread

Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Marek Straka <marek@straka.info> - 2020-06-03 17:30 +0200
    Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> - 2020-06-03 18:10 +0200
      Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2020-06-04 02:40 +0200
    Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Mark Pearson <markpearson@lenovo.com> - 2020-06-04 03:40 +0200
      Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2020-06-04 11:10 +0200
        Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2020-06-04 14:10 +0200
        Bug#962134: [External] Re: Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Mark Pearson <markpearson@lenovo.com> - 2020-06-04 15:30 +0200
          Bug#962134: [External] Re: Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Mark Pearson <markpearson@lenovo.com> - 2020-06-22 22:10 +0200
    Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Matt Corallo <debbug@bluematt.me> - 2020-08-26 18:50 +0200
      Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware Matt Corallo <debbug@bluematt.me> - 2020-12-12 22:30 +0100
    Bug#962134: marked as done (add Sound Open Firmware) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2020-12-24 17:10 +0100

#67220 — Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware

Package: firmware-linux-nonfree
Version: 20190717-2
Severity: normal


Add Sound Open Firmware:
https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin
https://www.sofproject.org/



-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.6.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages firmware-linux-nonfree depends on:
ii  firmware-amd-graphics  20190717-2
ii  firmware-misc-nonfree  20190717-2

Versions of packages firmware-linux-nonfree recommends:
pn  amd64-microcode  <none>
pn  intel-microcode  <none>

firmware-linux-nonfree suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#67221

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 05:25:21PM +0200, Marek Straka wrote:
> Package: firmware-linux-nonfree
> Version: 20190717-2
> Severity: normal
> 
> 
> Add Sound Open Firmware:
> https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin
> https://www.sofproject.org/

This is free software and could go into main or am I missing something?

Cheers,
        Moritz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67223

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:02:50 +0200 Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:

> This is free software and could go into main or am I missing something?

SOF is free software, but many devices require binaries that are signed
by Intel's keys, so the free license/source code much less useful and
the binaries going into linux-firmware are needed for most people.

More details in the links on this page:

https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Open

Mark, do Lenovo Laptops require the Intel-signed blobs?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67224

On 6/3/2020 8:31 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
 >
 >
 > SOF is free software, but many devices require binaries that are signed
 > by Intel's keys, so the free license/source code much less useful and
 > the binaries going into linux-firmware are needed for most people.
 >
 > More details in the links on this page:
 >
 > https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware/Open
 >
 > Mark, do Lenovo Laptops require the Intel-signed blobs?
 >
Hi Paul - I'm afraid it does (not something of Lenovo's choosing to my 
knowledge...).

My understanding is the SOF team didn't want to use intel-firmware but 
I'm trying to find the discussion on the SOF mailing list as to why.

I think it was related to there being topology files and debug files and 
wanting to keep everything together - and the other two files didn't 
belong in intel-firmware.
There were also concerns about it moving outside of their control. Their 
solution was the sof-bin repository 
(https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin)

I have to admit - I hadn't considered the freedoms issues of that.
Is having a sof-firmware repository that is non-free the same way as 
intel-firmware? I'm guessing Debian doesn't want to increase the number 
of non-free packages?

I know the SOF team wanted to work with Debian on this issue a few 
months ago - I will dig up that email and point them at this bug so they 
can contribute to the conversation without me muddying the waters about 
their decisions (I was on their mailing list but not involved in the 
decision making)

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67226

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 21:34 -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:

> Hi Paul - I'm afraid it does (not something of Lenovo's choosing to my 
> knowledge...).

Interesting, is it Intel doing the restrictions on Lenovo hardware?
ISTR reading on one of the bugs that some hardware doesn't have the
restrictions, so it is strange that Intel restricts some hardware
vendors but not others. If you are able to push back on these Intel
restrictions, it would be very much appreciated.

> My understanding is the SOF team didn't want to use intel-firmware but 
> I'm trying to find the discussion on the SOF mailing list as to why.

I'm not sure what you mean by intel-firmware. Based on the Repology
website I guess you mean the Intel CPU microcode, which is shipped in
Debian in the intel-microcode package.

https://repology.org/project/intel-firmware/packages
https://repology.org/project/intel-microcode/packages

> I think it was related to there being topology files and debug files and 
> wanting to keep everything together - and the other two files didn't 
> belong in intel-firmware.

Since intel-firmware is mostly about CPU microcode, I agree that SOF
doesn't belong in the intel-firmware/intel-microcode packages.

> There were also concerns about it moving outside of their control. Their 
> solution was the sof-bin repository 
> (https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-bin)

OK, I guess that this repository should be packaged in Debian non-free. 

I am surprised that they created a new repo instead of using upstream
linux-firmware repository, I guess they wanted more control though.

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/

This is going to be annoying because it means that every distro has to
package sof-bin instead of just updating their linux-firmware package.

> I have to admit - I hadn't considered the freedoms issues of that.

It is seriously annoying, since it means you can't fix bugs and then
immediately test them, you have to go through Intel SOF releases.

> Is having a sof-firmware repository that is non-free the same way as 
> intel-firmware? I'm guessing Debian doesn't want to increase the number 
> of non-free packages?

Debian is generally pragmatic about including new non-free packages,
where it is necessary, someone who cares will usually end up doing it.
We would obviously prefer everything to be fully free software, but we
don't live in an ideal world so we make do with what we get. So a new
sof-bin package (sof folks should rename that to sof-firmware-signed)
should be fine to include in Debian. Hopefully someone will also
package a build of the firmware source code for folks who can run
unsigned or debug firmware builds.

> I know the SOF team wanted to work with Debian on this issue a few 
> months ago - I will dig up that email and point them at this bug so they 
> can contribute to the conversation without me muddying the waters about 
> their decisions (I was on their mailing list but not involved in the 
> decision making)

Interesting, thanks for that.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67227

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

 ❦  4 juin 2020 16:56 +08, Paul Wise:

>> My understanding is the SOF team didn't want to use intel-firmware but 
>> I'm trying to find the discussion on the SOF mailing list as to why.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by intel-firmware. Based on the Repology
> website I guess you mean the Intel CPU microcode, which is shipped in
> Debian in the intel-microcode package.
>
> https://repology.org/project/intel-firmware/packages
> https://repology.org/project/intel-microcode/packages

I think this is firmware-intel-sound (source package is fimware-nonfree).
-- 
Test programs at their boundary values.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67228 — Bug#962134: [External] Re: Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware

On 6/4/2020 4:56 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 21:34 -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:
> 
>> Hi Paul - I'm afraid it does (not something of Lenovo's choosing to my
>> knowledge...).
> 
> Interesting, is it Intel doing the restrictions on Lenovo hardware?
> ISTR reading on one of the bugs that some hardware doesn't have the
> restrictions, so it is strange that Intel restricts some hardware
> vendors but not others. If you are able to push back on these Intel
> restrictions, it would be very much appreciated.
> 
I'll see what I can find out.

<snip>

> 
>> I know the SOF team wanted to work with Debian on this issue a few
>> months ago - I will dig up that email and point them at this bug so they
>> can contribute to the conversation without me muddying the waters about
>> their decisions (I was on their mailing list but not involved in the
>> decision making)
> 
> Interesting, thanks for that.
> 
OK - I have asked the SOF folk to talk to you about this. I'll unicast 
you the email address so you have the correct contact details too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67360 — Bug#962134: [External] Re: Bug#962134: add Sound Open Firmware

On 6/4/2020 9:21 AM, Mark Pearson wrote:
>>
> OK - I have asked the SOF folk to talk to you about this. I'll unicast 
> you the email address so you have the correct contact details too.

I know some discussions started with the SOF folk. Has there been any 
progress for this issue?
Anything that is stuck that I can help with?
Thanks
Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67879

This now impacts more and more devices - new generation Dell laptops that ship with linux need this (plus a new release 
of alsa-ucm-conf with current git) to get audio.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68818

With the fixes for #976791 landed in linux-5.10~rc7-1~exp1 and the new release of alsa-ucm-conf in testing, this is the 
last remaining issue for getting audio to work on modern Dell machines (in my case a Precision 5750). It would be quite 
a shame for this to sit for a few more months and Debian end up not having working audio on year-old machines come bullseye.

On 8/26/20 12:35 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:
> This now impacts more and more devices - new generation Dell laptops that ship with linux need this (plus a new release 
> of alsa-ucm-conf with current git) to get audio.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68979 — Bug#962134: marked as done (add Sound Open Firmware)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Your message dated Thu, 24 Dec 2020 16:00:11 +0000
with message-id <E1ksT2B-000ALq-OG@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#962134: fixed in firmware-sof 1.6~rc3-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #962134,
regarding add Sound Open Firmware
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
962134: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962134
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web