On 12/6/2022 10:58 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/12/2022 20:28, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/2/2022 4:26 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2022 11:33 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25.11.2022 12:53, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21.11.2022 14:56, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 5:47 PM Konrad Dybcio 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> 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
>>>
>>> It does to some extent. It is basically a 4359 revision 9:
>>>
>>> [   25.898782] brcmfmac: brcmf_chip_recognition found AXI chip: 
>>> BCM4359/9
>>>
>>> The 4359 entry in pcie.c is applicable for revision 0 and higher 
>>> (doubtful but that is in the code):
>>>
>>>      BRCMF_FW_ENTRY(BRCM_CC_4359_CHIP_ID, 0xFFFFFFFF, 4359),
>>>
>>> We need to change the mask above to 0x000001FF and add a new entry 
>>> with mask 0xFFFFFE00. All we need is come up with a reasonable 
>>> firmware filename. So can you run the strings command on the firmware 
>>> you use:
>>>
>>> $ strings fw.bin | tail -1
>>>
>>> and let me know the output.
>>
>> Actually realized you already provided a URL to the repo containing 
>> the firmware you used. So I had a look and it shows:
>>
>> 43596a0-roml/pcie-ag-apcs-pktctx-proptxstatus-ampduhostreorder-lpc-die3-olpc-pspretend-mfp-ltecx-clm_43xx_somc_mimo-phyflags-txpwrctrls-dpo Version: 9.75.119.15 (r691661) CRC: a6cf427b Date: Fri 2017-03-24 13:24:25 KST Ucode Ver: 1060.20542 FWID: 01-e4abc35c
>>
>> However, from firmware perspective this is equivalent to 4359c0 so I 
>> would suggest the change below.
>>
>> Let me know if that works.
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> Yes, it does seem to work just fine! The kernel now looks for 
> brcm/brcmfmac4359c-pcie.sony,kagura-row.bin as we would expect.
> 
> Could you submit this patch below to supersede my one?

I have no problem when you include this patch in yours and submit it to 
the linux-wireless list.

Regards,
Arend