From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arend van Spriel Subject: Re: Firmware for Bluetooth (and wifi) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:11:02 +0100 Message-ID: <52E78236.50702@broadcom.com> References: <52A040CE.5040706@schinagl.nl> <52A09B5B.70800@schinagl.nl> <52B17973.1000608@broadcom.com> <52B19F38.7060503@redhat.com> <52B1CA51.4010202@broadcom.com> <52BD68BA.3080304@broadcom.com> <52CD12D4.5030008@broadcom.com> <52E19A27.7000402@redhat.com> <52E19E1C.1010402@redhat.com> <52E5392B.80605@redhat.com> <52E580A8.4060600@broadcom.com> <52E5A631.4030204@gmail.com> <52E62510.5090103@broadcom.com> <52E630F4.8090805@gmail.com > Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52E630F4.8090805-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Tomasz Figa , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-sunxi , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 01/27/2014 11:12 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> The brcmfmac driver that consumes these DT nodes will have a closer look >> at the device obtaining the chipid during the probe and determine if it >> can support it. So the compatible string indicates that the device needs >> a so-called fullmac wireless driver opposed to a mac80211 aka. softmac >> wireless driver. > > The compatible string should guarantee that the chip ID register holds a > valid value, so just "wifi-fullmac" or "brcmfmac" sounds too generic to I am not sure I understand this requirement. Is the DT node claimed somehow after of_find_matching_node() and unavailable to other drivers. > me. The string must specify the family of chips with this chip ID scheme > in a reasonably precise way. "brcm,bcm43xx-fmac" maybe? I still see a > risk of, say, BCM43999 showing up, which would be a completely different > chip. while having the model matching the pattern. If a completely different chip, ie. BCM43999, shows up in a board the device tree should not use "brcm,bcm43xx-fmac". That would be an error in the dts file, right? All the devices listed in your bindings patch are treated the same, ie. *compatible* on DT level and hence can have the same compatible property. In my opinion that is what the compatible property is about. It identifies how a specific category of devices is accessed/configured. As an example please see [1]. It shows one compatible string for a binding that is used for different MPIC controllers. Just to be clear, I like your suggestion to use "brcm,bcm43xx-fmac", but felt you did not so added my explanation/point of view. Regards, Arend [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/mpic.txt