From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "'Arend Van Spriel' via linux-sunxi" Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/4] brcmfmac: Add brcm,nvram_file_name dt property Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 20:20:35 +0200 Message-ID: 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> Reply-To: arend.vanspriel-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Jonas Gorski Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Hans de Goede , Kalle Valo , Priit Laes , "John W . Linville" , Arend van Spriel , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , "linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , devicetree , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 1-7-2016 10:58, Jonas Gorski wrote: > Hi, >=20 > 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 =3D "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 (an= d >>>>> lastly no suffix) until you get a match. (AFAICT, this is what the >>>>> "model" property was originally intended for anyway, but almost nobod= y >>>>> did it right, and everyone put a user readable string into "model" fo= r >>>>> boards instead of the ePAPR defined compatible string). >>>> >>>> Hmm, interesting idea. Not sure how easy / hard it will be to implemen= t >>>> 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 =3D "ap6210"; >=20 > If you want a separate property, then I repeat my very first > suggestion, the well defined model property. > e.g. >=20 > brcmf@0 { > model =3D "ampak,ap6210"; > compatible =3D "brcm,bcm4329-fmac"; > ... > }; >=20 > All device nodes may have a model property, not just the top "machine" on= e. 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=E2= =80=99s model number of the device. The recommended format is: =E2=80=9Cmanufacturer,model=E2=80=9D, where manu= facturer is a string describing the name of the manufacturer (such as a stock ticker symbol), and model specifies the model number. Regards, Arend --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.