On Thu, 8 May 2025 at 00:24, Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 09:13:05AM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> > Only one device-tree overlay (lan966x_evb_lan9662_nic.dtbo) is handled
> > and this overlay is directly referenced in lan966x_pci_load_overlay().
> >
> > This avoid to use the code for an other board.
> >
> > In order to be more generic and to allow support for other boards (PCI
> > Vendor/Device IDs), introduce the lan966x_pci_info structure and attach
> > it to PCI Vendor/Device IDs handled by the driver.
> >
> > This structure contains information related to the PCI board such as
> > information related to the dtbo describing the board we have to load.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> How big is the dtbo ?
>
> This is going in the right direction. I'm just wondering if each dtbo
> should be wrapped in its own very slim PCI driver, which simply
> registers its lan966x_pci_info structure to a core driver. Only the
> needed dtbo will then be loaded into memory as a module, not them all.
Alternatively, the dtbo could be loaded through request_firmware().
That could lead to a generic support option in the PCI core, which would
fallback to loading pci-<vid>-<pid>.dtbo when no driver is available.
> Pretty much all the pieces are here, so it can be done later.
Exactly.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
