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'sfirmware\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