On 1.12.2022 12:31, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 11/28/2022 3:40 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26.11.2022 22:45, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:25 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25.11.2022 12:53, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>>>> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21.11.2022 14:56, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 5:47 PM Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can think of a couple of hacky ways to force use of 43596 fw, but I
>>>>>>>>> don't think any would be really upstreamable..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is only known to affect the Sony Xperias mentioned then
>>>>>>>> a thing such as:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (of_machine_is_compatible("sony,xyz") ||
>>>>>>>> of_machine_is_compatible("sony,zzz")... ) {
>>>>>>>> // Enforce FW version
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> would be completely acceptable in my book. It hammers the
>>>>>>>> problem from the top instead of trying to figure out itsy witsy
>>>>>>>> details about firmware revisions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>> Linus Walleij
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, I think I came up with a better approach by pulling a page
>>>>>>> out of Asahi folks' book - please take a look and tell me what you
>>>>>>> think about this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://github.com/SoMainline/linux/commit/4b6fccc995cd79109b0dae4e4ab2e48db97695e7
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>> https://github.com/SoMainline/linux/commit/e3ea1dc739634f734104f37fdbed046873921af7
>>>
>>> Something in this direction works too.
>>>
>>> The upside is that it tells all operating systems how to deal
>>> with the firmware for this hardware.
>>>
>>>>>> Instead of a directory path ("brcm/brcmfmac43596-pcie") why not provide
>>>>>> just the chipset name ("brcmfmac43596-pcie")? IMHO it's unnecessary to
>>>>>> have directory names in Device Tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's common practice to include a full $FIRMWARE_DIR-relative
>>>>> path when specifying firmware in DT, though here I left out the board
>>>>> name bit as that's assigned dynamically anyway. That said, if you don't
>>>>> like it, I can change it.
>>>>
>>>> It's just that I have understood that Device Tree is supposed to
>>>> describe hardware and to me a firmware directory "brcm/" is a software
>>>> property, not a hardware property. But this is really for the Device
>>>> Tree maintainers to decide, they know this best :)
>>>
>>> I would personally just minimize the amount of information
>>> put into the device tree to be exactly what is needed to find
>>> the right firmware.
>>>
>>> brcm,firmware-compatible = "43596";
>>>
>>> since the code already knows how to conjure the rest of the string.
>>>
>>> But check with Rob/Krzysztof.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Linus Walleij
>>
>> Krzysztof, Rob [added to CC] - can I have your opinions?
>
> I tried catching up on this thread. Reading it I am not sure what the issue is, but I am happy to dive in. If you can provide a boot log with brcmfmac loaded with module parameter 'debug=0x1416' I can try and make sense of the chipid/devid confusion.
Hope this helps, thanks! https://hastebin.com/xidagekuge.yaml
Konrad
>
> Regards,
> Arend
