On Jan 14, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 05:29:28PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 04:56:02PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > Yes. What you plug into PCI is not a part of this hardware, so cannot be
> > > > > part of the compatible.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the quick response. Just to make sure Lorenzo doesn't get
> > > > confused, I guess a v3 would be sending v1 again (firmware-names
> > > > implementation series) with the review tag and we should be done with
> > > > this.
> > > 
> > > Since this is a PCI device, you can ask it what it is, and then load
> > > the correct firmware based on the PCI vendor:product. You don't need
> > > to describe the hardware in DT because it is enumerable.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > I think it's problematic to create a bind between the NPU and
> > PCIe.
> 
> But the NPU must already be bound to PCIe. How else does it know which
> PCIe slot the WiFi card is on, so it can make use of it?

In the current codebase the NPU driver does not need to access the WiFi PCIe
slot (or any other external device) since the offloading (wired and wireless)
is fully managed by the NPU chip (hw + firmware binaries). The NPU driver is
only responsible for loading the proper firmware binaries, configure NPU hw
registers and export APIs for other external chips (e.g. MT76).
IIUC your proposal, we should add a PCIe slot access in the NPU kernel driver in
order to enumerate PCIe Vendor/Device IDs during device probe and load the
proper firmware binaries, right? If so, this approach seems quite more complex
to me with respect of relying on firmware-name dts property (assuming
firmware-name is a suitable property for this scope). What do you think?

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
>      Andrew