On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 09:13:33AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > 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. Yes! Rob
