On Jan 14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/01/2026 11:09, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 10:26:33AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 14/01/2026 10:01, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 09:20:27AM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>>>> Introduce en7581-npu-7996 compatible string in order to enable MT76 NPU
> >>>>> offloading for MT7996 (Eagle) chipset since it requires different
> >>>>> binaries with respect to the ones used for MT7992 on the EN7581 SoC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-npu.yaml | 1 +
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-npu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-npu.yaml
> >>>>> index 59c57f58116b568092446e6cfb7b6bd3f4f47b82..96b2525527c14f60754885c1362b9603349a6353 100644
> >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-npu.yaml
> >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/airoha,en7581-npu.yaml
> >>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
> >>>>>    compatible:
> >>>>>      enum:
> >>>>>        - airoha,en7581-npu
> >>>>> +      - airoha,en7581-npu-7996
> >>>>
> >>>> This does not warrant new compatible. There is some misunderstanding and
> >>>> previous discussion asked you to use proper compatible, not invent fake
> >>>> one for non-existing hardware.  Either you have en7996-npu or
> >>>> en7581-npu. Not some mixture.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Krzysztof,
> >>>
> >>> We need to specify which fw binaries the airoha NPU module should load
> >>> according to the MT76 WiFi chipset is running on the board (since the NPU
> >>> firmware images are not the same for all the different WiFi chipsets).
> >>> We have two possible combinations:
> >>> - EN7581 NPU + MT7996 (Eagle)
> >>> - EN7581 NPU + MT7992 (Kite)
> >>>
> >>> Please note the airoha NPU module is always the same (this is why is just
> >>> added the -7996 suffix in the compatible string). IIUC you are suggesting
> >>> to use the 'airoha,en7996-npu' compatible string, right?
> >>
> >> No. I am suggesting you need to describe here the hardware. You said
> >> this EN7581 NPU, so this is the only compatible you get, unless (which
> >> is not explained anywhere here) that's part of MT799x soc, but then you
> >> miss that compatible. Really, standard compatible rules apply - so
> >> either this is SoC element/component or dedicated chip.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> > 
> > just noticing this conversation and I think there is some confusion
> > here.
> > 
> > The HW is the following:
> > 
> > AN/EN7581 SoC that have embedded this NPU (a network coprocessor) that
> > require a dedicated firmware blob to be loaded to work.
> > 
> > Then the SoC can have various WiFi card connected to the PCIe slot.
> > 
> > For the WiFi card MT7996 (Eagle) and the WiFi card MT7992 (Kite) the NPU
> > can also offload the WiFi traffic.
> > 
> > A dedicated firmware blob for the NPU is needed to support the specific
> > WiFi card.
> > 
> > This is why v1 proposed the implementation with the firmware-names
> > property.
> > 
> > v2 introduce the compatible but I feel that doesn't strictly describe
> > the hardware as the NPU isn't specific to the WiFi card but just the
> > firmware blob.
> > 
> > 
> > I still feel v1 with firmware-names should be the correct candidate to
> > handle this.
> 
> Yes. What you plug into PCI is not a part of this hardware, so cannot be
> part of the compatible.

ack. So is it fine to use firmware-name property in this case as proposed in
v1?

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> > 
> > Hope now the HW setup is more clear.
> > 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof