On 04-09-17 16:42, Antony Antony wrote:
Hi Arend,
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Hi Rob,
Actually the Broadcom wifi chips themselves are discoverable. So once the
driver has access to the register space of the device it can determine the
actual chip, its revision, and exactly what cores (and their revision) are
present in the chip. Hence there is a single compatible string as there is
no need to convey the same information through device tree data.
In my expereince this how it seems to work.
I jsut discovered s/brcm,bcm4329-fmac/brcm/ can load the broadcom driver.
brcmf: wifi@1 {
reg = <1>;
compatible = "brcm";
};
This looks better to me. Maxime, Would this work?
I have no idea what you are saying here. To what exactly do you apply that
substitute. In brcmfmac I have:
Thanks for pointing me to the relevent code. I was asking about DT support I
submitted.
if (!np || bus_type != BRCMF_BUSTYPE_SDIO ||
!of_device_is_compatible(np, "brcm,bcm4329-fmac"))
return;
In my perception using "brcm" goes against DT compatible naming convention.
It seems the driver has a special place holder, bcm4329-fmac.
I am still wondering what is acceptable in the DT.
compatible = ""brcm,bcm4329-fmac";
or
compatible = "brcm";
The last one does not generate any warnings.
Ok. So what warning do you get when using "brcm,bcm4329-fmac"? Or did
you really try ""brcm,bcm4329-fmac" as mentioned above?
Regards,
Arend
