On Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:20:46 AM CEST Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2017-10-13 21:07, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:02:47PM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> Add documentation describing how device tree can be used to configure > >> wireless chips supported by the mt76 driver. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <n...@nbd.name> > >> --- > >> .../bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.txt | 24 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.txt > >> > >> diff --git > >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.txt > >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.txt > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 000000000000..19522ab97d62 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.txt > >> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ > >> +* MediaTek mt76xx devices > >> + > >> +This node provides properties for configuring the MediaTek mt76xx wireless > >> +device. The node is expected to be specified as a child node of the PCI > >> +controller to which the wireless chip is connected. > >> + > >> +Optional properties: > >> + > >> +- mac-address: See ethernet.txt in the parent directory > >> +- local-mac-address: See ethernet.txt in the parent directory > >> +- ieee80211-freq-limit: See ieee80211.txt > >> +- mediatek,mtd-eeprom: Specify a MTD partition + offset containing EEPROM > >> data > > > > MTD is a Linuxism. And is an EEPROM the only supported device? I'd > > suggest naming if after what the data contains. > PCI cards with this kind of wireless chip usually come with some form of > EEPROM or use the on-chip OTP ROM. > This property is for the case where the chip is built into an embedded > device and the data that would otherwise be on an EEPROM is stored on a > MTD partition instead. > The EEPROM data itself contains multiple things: calibration data, > hardware capabilities, MAC address, etc. > I couldn't think of a better name for it, do you have any suggestions? This sort of reminds me of the failed ath9k nvmem patches: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9622127/
Which uses the nvmem system. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/nvmem/nvmem.txt Rob, would this be acceptable? Regards, Christian
