Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/4] brcmfmac: Add brcm,nvram_file_name dt property

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Monday, July 4, 2016 11:08:38 AM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On 4-7-2016 10:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday, July 4, 2016 10:41:20 AM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 2-7-2016 23:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:20:35 PM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> >>>>> If you want a separate property, then I repeat my very first
> >>>>> suggestion, the well defined model property.
> >>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> brcmf@0 {
> >>>>>         model = "ampak,ap6210";
> >>>>>         compatible = "brcm,bcm4329-fmac";
> >>>>>         ...
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All device nodes may have a model property, not just the top "machine" one.
> >>>>
> >>>> I heard you the first time  I just was not sure what the implications
> >>>> would be to use it. Hence I suggested a vendor specific property.
> >>>> However, looking up and reading the definition in ePAPRv1.1 I suppose it
> >>>> is fine to use the model property:
> >>>>
> >>>> Property: model
> >>>> Value type: <string>
> >>>> Description:
> >>>> The model property value is a <string> that specifies the manufacturer’s
> >>>> model number of the device.
> >>>>
> >>>> The recommended format is: “manufacturer,model”, where manufacturer is a
> >>>> string describing the name of the manufacturer (such as a stock ticker
> >>>> symbol), and model specifies the model number.
> >>>
> >>> The model property is very similar to compatible, except that there is
> >>> only one entry rather than a list of entries from most specific to
> >>> most generic.
> >>
> >> They seem very similar, but I think there is a conceptual difference.
> >> The compatible property is mainly used to select the appropriate driver
> >> and as such the property is typically ignored by device drivers.
> >> Probably there are exceptions to be found.
> >>
> >>> I think by writing the above example as
> >>>
> >>>       compatible = "ampak,ap6210", "brcm,bcm4329-fmac";
> >>>
> >>> we can provide the same functionality in a slightly simpler way, the driver
> >>> then just goes on to look for the nvram file for each entry in sequence until
> >>> it finds one.
> >>
> >> Not sure why this would be simpler. Why would traversing the compatible
> >> string be simpler than handling the model property if present and
> >> otherwise fallback to the default nvram naming.
> > 
> > Because you have to walk the list anyway to find the other firmware files:
> > when you have a specialization of a device that requires listing both values
> > as compatible, the driver has no idea which of the entries to use, unless
> > you add a lookup table that adds more complexity.
> 
> Currently, the brcmfmac bindings describe a single compatible string,
> ie. "brcm,bcm4329-fmac", which selects the driver/programming model. If
> that programming model supports "use model property if present,
> otherwise use default" there is nothing to traverse. The default way in
> the driver to determine firmware and nvram filename already has a lookup
> table which uses the chip id and chip revision as key, which are read
> from the device.

In drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c I already see
over a dozen different chips being supported, bcm4329 is only one of
them. In particular, there seem to be some that have various modules:

        BRCMF_FW_NVRAM_ENTRY(BRCM_CC_43241_CHIP_ID, 0x0000001F, 43241B0),
        BRCMF_FW_NVRAM_ENTRY(BRCM_CC_43241_CHIP_ID, 0x00000020, 43241B4),
        BRCMF_FW_NVRAM_ENTRY(BRCM_CC_43241_CHIP_ID, 0xFFFFFFC0, 43241B5),

So if you have a bcm43241, that compatible string probably should
include both brcm,bcm43241-b4-fmac and brcm,bcm43241-fmac, possibly also
brcm,bcm4329-fmac, to show that it is a superset of the programming
interface of that one.

	Arnd