Re: qcom: vpu: Add video firmware Gen2 binary for SC7280

On 19/02/2026 14:32, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
> On 2/19/2026 11:46 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 11:09:29AM +0530, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The following changes since commit f2dbd7a7a74be0d309d8058a55308dcea33a41d6:
>>>
>>>    Merge branch 'robot/pr-0-1770355730' into 'main' (2026-02-06 07:17:03 +0000)
>>>
>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>>
>>>    https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/linux-kernel/linux-firmware.git
>>> video-fw-kodiak-gen2
>>>
>>> for you to fetch changes up to 3da84f1b4bb062f18d7f08807beeb46328e06d46:
>>>
>>>    qcom vpu: Add video firmware Gen2 binary for SC7280 (2026-02-19 11:01:56
>>> +0530)
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Dikshita Agarwal (1):
>>>        qcom vpu: Add video firmware Gen2 binary for SC7280
>>>
>>>   WHENCE                        |   4 ++++
>>>   qcom/vpu/vpu20_p1_s6_gen2.mbn | Bin 0 -> 2030620 bytes
>>
>> What is the difference from the existing qcom/vpu/vpu20_p1_gen2.mbn?
>> Why did you use a different name for the binary? Why are we not
>> providing the backwards compatibility with the previous name?
> 
> As I mentioned in the other thread, the earlier binary I posted was
> incorrect. It contained an MBN v7 header,

Well... You didn't clarify why it was not working. Nor why did it get submitted this way.

> which is not compatible with the
> SC7280. The correct binary should use an MBN v6 header.
> 
> This one uses the MBN v6 header, which is why it is named
> vpu20_p1_s6_gen2.mbn following the same naming convention as other video
> firmwares.

I'd rather suggest vpu20_p1_gen2_s6.mbn. Consider other firmware for the
the same VPU core with different signatures, vpu20_p1_s7_gen2.mbn vs
vpu20_p1_gen2_s7.mbn. The latter points out that it is the same
firmware, just signed differently.

> I was initially planning to drop the non‑working firmware vpu20_p1_gen2.mbn
> in this PR, but since you already raised a PR for it, I didn’t make any
> changes regarding that file.

What is the firmware name that the driver has been using? I can clearly
see .fwname = "./qcom/vpu/vpu20_p1_gen2.mbn" in the current source code,
which means that we likely out to provide the old name. I'd say, you
either need to pick up my patch in your branch or just remove the
existing firmware file on your own. And possibly provide a compatibility
Link: clause. In any case, it all requires a better commit message than
just "Add Host Firmware Interface (HFI) Gen2 based video firmware binary
for sc7280.".

> 
>>
>> Granted your comment on the previous binary, was it actually tested?
> 
> Yes, it is tested.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry