Hi,
On 30 June 2016 at 21:23, Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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_<compatible>.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@0 {
model = "ampak,ap6210";
compatible = "brcm,bcm4329-fmac";
...
};
All device nodes may have a model property, not just the top "machine" one.
Regards
Jonas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
