Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Nov 2022 17:47:12 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] brcmfmac: Add support for BCM43596 PCIe Wi-Fi | From | Konrad Dybcio <> |
| |
On 26/09/2022 11:27, Kalle Valo wrote: > Alvin Šipraga <ALSI@bang-olufsen.dk> writes: > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 03:02:12PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 12:21 PM Konrad Dybcio >>> <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Also worth noting is the 'somc' bit, meaning there are probably *some* SONY >>>> customizations, but that's also just a guess. >>> >>> What I have seen from BRCM customizations on Samsung phones is that >>> the per-device customization of firmware seems to involve the set-up of >>> some GPIO and power management pins. For example if integrated with >>> an SoC that has autonomous system resume, or if some GPIO line has >>> to be pulled to enable an external regulator or PA. >> >> At least with Infineon (formerly Cypress), as a customer you might get a >> private firmware and this will be maintained internally by them on a >> separate customer branch. Any subsequent bugfixes or feature requests >> will usually be applied to that customer branch and a new firmware built >> from it. I think their internal "mainline" branch might get merged into >> the customer branches from time to time, but this seems to be done on an >> ad-hoc basis. This is our experience at least. >> >> I would also point out that the BCM4359 is equivalent to the >> CYW88359/CYW89359 chipset, which we are using in some of our >> products. Note that this is a Cypress chipset (identifiable by the >> Version: ... (... CY) tag in the version string). But the FW Konrad is >> linking appears to be for a Broadcom chipset. >> >> FYI, here's a publicly available set of firmware files for the '4359: >> >> https://github.com/NXP/imx-firmware/tree/master/cyw-wifi-bt/1FD_CYW4359 >> >> Anyway, I would second Hector's suggestion and make this a separate FW. > > I also recommend having a separate firmware filename. Like Hector said, > it's easy to have a symlink in userspace if same binary can be used. So, I dusted off this patch and tried to change the fw name, only to discover that the BRCM_PCIE_43596_DEVICE_ID is equal to CY_PCIE_89459_DEVICE_ID, (which btw uses 4355/89459 fw), but then it makes the driver expect 4359/9 based on rev matching, so... the 43596 chip ID may be a lie? Or at least for the one used in my particular device? I'm beyond confused now..
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..
Any thoughts?
Konrad
| |