On 28/10/2022 14:39, Thierry Reding wrote: ...
+static const struct tegra_xusb_soc tegra234_soc = { + .firmware = "nvidia/tegra234/xusb.bin", + .supply_names = tegra194_supply_names, + .num_supplies = ARRAY_SIZE(tegra194_supply_names), + .phy_types = tegra194_phy_types, + .num_types = ARRAY_SIZE(tegra194_phy_types), + .context = &tegra186_xusb_context, + .ports = { + .usb3 = { .offset = 0, .count = 4, }, + .usb2 = { .offset = 4, .count = 4, }, + }, + .scale_ss_clock = false, + .has_ipfs = false, + .otg_reset_sspi = false, + .ops = &tegra234_ops, + .mbox = { + .cmd = XUSB_BAR2_ARU_MBOX_CMD, + .data_in = XUSB_BAR2_ARU_MBOX_DATA_IN, + .data_out = XUSB_BAR2_ARU_MBOX_DATA_OUT, + .owner = XUSB_BAR2_ARU_MBOX_OWNER, + .smi_intr = XUSB_BAR2_ARU_SMI_INTR, + }, + .lpm_support = true, + .has_bar2 = true, + .has_ifr = true, +}; +MODULE_FIRMWARE("nvidia/tegra234/xusb.bin");Can you prepare a patch to add this firmware to the linux-firmware repository? I don't see it there yet.
Actually, we should remove the MODULE_FIRMWARE completely for Tegra234. Per the commit message the variable 'has_ifr' is used to indicate if the firmware is loaded by calling request_firmware() or via these IFR registers. I wonder if we need this 'has_ifr' variable if we should just avoid setting the 'firmware' variable for Tegra234 and use this instead of the 'has_ifr'?
Jon -- nvpublic
