On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 16:59 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote: [...] > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BCM2711 > > > > > > > > > > This won't work with rpi_arm64_defconfig. > > > > > Can't we just evaluate at runtime if we need to do anything in > > > > > xhci_pci_fixup. > > > > > > > > I can't see why, who is going to call xhci_pci_probe() in RPi3? > > > > > > > > > > If you do make rpi_arm64_defconfig and inspect the .config, you will see > > > that > > > CONFIG_BCM2711 is not defined, so this code won't be called on RPi4. > > > > Oh! Understood. > > > > Well, given that only xhci_pci_probe() is called if we're running on RPi4, I > > think I can disregard those defines altogether. I'll double-check that. > > > > Yes but from my understanding we only need to call the function on newer > revisions of RPi4. Does it have any side effect on older revisions, e.g. we > get > error messages (see below)?
The firmware quirk supports older rpi4s and simply does nothing. Note that the
downstream Linux implementation runs this on all rpi4s.
> [...]>>>> I wonder if the newer RPi4 have also a newer revision ID (see
> > > > > get_board_rev).
> > > > > If
> > > > > so we could add another bool to struct rpi_model which will indicate
> > > > > us if
> > > > > we
> > > > > need to notify VideoCore about vl805's firmware.
> > > > >
> > > > > > +void xhci_pci_fixup(struct udevice *dev)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + ret = bcm2711_notify_vl805_reset();
> > > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > > + printf("RPI: Failed to notify VideoCore about vl805's
> > > > > > firmware\n");
>
> We already have
> printf("bcm2711: Faild to load vl805's firmware, %d\n", ret); in
> bcm2711_notify_vl805_reset(). Do we really need two error messages?
Agree, it's a little redundant. I'll get rid of it.
Regards,
Nicolas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
