On 02/01/2023 22.58, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 1/2/2023 10:45 AM, Aditya Garg wrote: >> Hi Hector >> >>> >>> Is the CYW89459 just a rebrand of the BCM4355, or just a subset? If it >>> is a rebrand, it's okay if we call our Apple firmware >>> brcmfmac89459-pcie* (note that we use per-board firmware names, so it >>> wouldn't conflict with a generic one). However, if CYW89459 only refers >>> to specific variants, I think the firmware should be named after the >>> overall bcm4355 family. >>> >>> I'm guessing you intend to ship firmware for this. Would that firmware >>> work for all 4355 variants, or only the CYW one? If only the CYW one, is >>> it possible to differentiate between them based on PCI revision ID? Note >>> that our 4355 has revision ID 12, and Apple specifically calls it 4355C1 >>> (different chip revisions have different firmware builds, which is why I >>> named our firmware brcmfmac4355c1-pcie). If the CYW variant uses other >>> revision IDs that do not overlap, maybe we should have different >>> firmware entries for them with different masks. >> >> >> Can we make a separate table for the OTP Apple chips, something like here :- >> >> https://github.com/AdityaGarg8/linux/commit/fc41aac9283d2ba653a8b3191e8c0138c13d8ee1 > > I do not understand from this email thread why you would need separate > tables. Can you explain? > I think he's proposing we special-case Apple chips into their own firmware table just to avoid colliding with non-Apple firmware usage, which is honestly kind of tempting as the safe option if nobody from the Broadcom/Cypress side is willing to clarify what, exactly, is the relationship between these chips and what their respective revision numbers are so we can *correctly* represent them and avoid further confusion and problems down the line. You might be able to help with that ;) - Hector
