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

On 2/19/2026 6:15 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Ack, would rename accordingly.

> 
>> 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.".
> 

Sure, I would remove the earlier non-working binary and explain the reason
in commit message clearly.

Thanks,
Dikshita

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