From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com (Arend Van Spriel) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 20:20:35 +0200 Subject: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/4] brcmfmac: Add brcm, nvram_file_name dt property In-Reply-To: References: <1467209074-15634-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <8d8bd933-717b-48e4-f002-7b834abed6fd@redhat.com> <3960223.GqB9zXL8s8@wuerfel> <1f44df41-0111-441b-4671-718eec0c4346@broadcom.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 1-7-2016 10:58, Jonas Gorski wrote: > Hi, > > On 30 June 2016 at 21:23, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> >> >> On 30-6-2016 13:31, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:25:15 PM CEST Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>> So then how about making use of a more specific compatible string? >>>>> >>>>> e.g. >>>>> >>>>> brcmf { >>>>> compatible = "foo,ap6210", "brcm,bcm4329-fmac"; >>>>> ... >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> and if the compatible has more than one element you request >>>>> FW_NAME_.txt as the nvram file. Or try each comptible (and >>>>> lastly no suffix) until you get a match. (AFAICT, this is what the >>>>> "model" property was originally intended for anyway, but almost nobody >>>>> did it right, and everyone put a user readable string into "model" for >>>>> boards instead of the ePAPR defined compatible string). >>>> >>>> Hmm, interesting idea. Not sure how easy / hard it will be to implement >>>> this, but from a dt binding point of view it seems elegant. >>>> >>>> Kalle, Arend, what do you think of this ? >> >> At first glance I like the suggestion, but this would mean updating the >> bindings document for each new wifi module that we want to add. Not a >> big problem, but it makes that I have a slight preference to using a >> property for it, eg. brcm,module = "ap6210"; > > If you want a separate property, then I repeat my very first > suggestion, the well defined model property. > e.g. > > brcmf at 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 :-p 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: Description: The model property value is a 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. Regards, Arend