On 2022/01/04 19:21, Arend van Spriel wrote:

On 1/4/2022 8:26 AM, Hector Martin wrote:

quoted

On DT platforms, the module-instance and antenna-sku-info properties
are passed in the DT. On ACPI platforms, module-instance is passed via
the analogous Apple device property mechanism, while the antenna SKU
info is instead obtained via an ACPI method that grabs it from
non-volatile storage.

Add support for this, to allow proper firmware selection on Apple
platforms.

Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <redacted>
---
  .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile      |  2 +
  .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c        | 47 +++++++++++++++++++
  .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c      |  1 +
  .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h      |  9 ++++
  4 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile
index 13c13504a6e8..19009eb9db93 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile

@@ -47,3 +47,5 @@ brcmfmac-$(CONFIG_OF) += \
  		of.o
  brcmfmac-$(CONFIG_DMI) += \
  		dmi.o
+brcmfmac-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += \
+		acpi.o

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..2b1a4448b291
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
+/*
+ * Copyright The Asahi Linux Contributors
+ */

Common format for copyright statement (in this folder) seems to be:

Copyright (c) <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT_HOLDER>

Regards,
Arend

I get this every time I submit a patch to a new subsystem :-)

This is based on this best practice:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/

Basically, the year format quickly becomes outdated and is rather
useless, and listing specific names also ends up missing every
subsequent contributor, so more general copyright statements work better
for this kind of use case. In the end we all know git history is the
proper record of copyright status.

I don't have a super strong opinion here, but we've been trying to
standardize on this format for contributions coming from our subproject,
and it feels more useful than a random contributor's name with a date 5
years in the past :)

-- 
Hector Martin (marcan@marcan.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub