Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
I like this model property but I'm no DT expert. What others think about
it, would it work?
--
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
