linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add device tree bindings for QTI chip wcn3998

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190327172210.GD112750@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:22:10 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Harish Bandi <c-hbandi@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     marcel@...tmann.org, johan.hedberg@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        hemantg@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        bgodavar@...eaurora.org, anubhavg@...eaurora.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add device tree
 bindings for QTI chip wcn3998

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:53:58PM +0530, Harish Bandi wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> > > > > > You mentioned in an earlier version of the series that there are
> > > > > > multiple WCN3998 variants with different requirements for
> > > > > > voltage/current. This seems to suggests that multiple compatible
> > > > > > strings are needed to distinguish between them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > [Harish] -- for now we want to add WCN3998 support only, What i mean
> > > > > to say
> > > > > in my earlier
> > > > > explanation that. WCN3990 is base variant and on top of that we have
> > > > > variants like WCN3990,
> > > > > WCN3998 and WCN3998-0,WCN3998-1 like that..
> > > > > So I think wcn399x would make sense for this series.
> > > >
> > > > If the variants have relevant differences between them (like different
> > > > regulator requirements) I think you want unique names, rather than
> > > > 'wcn399x' (I was referring to comments/documentation with this
> > > > string).
> > > >
> > > > If there are variants wouldn't your first 'wcn3998' already be a
> > > > 'wcn3998-n'? If 'wcn3998' without suffix is used I think it needs to
> > > > be valid for all 'wcn3998-n' variants (it might be less
> > > > power-efficient though than using the variant specific compatible
> > > > string), otherwise things get confusing (a 'wcn3998-2' isn't a
> > > > 'wcn3998'?)
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  [Harish] -- for now WCN3990 and WCN3998 only, also wcn3998-2 and
> > > wcn3998
> > > are same.
> > > So for now we are going to have only WCN3990 and WCN3998 for DT.
> > 
> > Since you brought up the different power requirements initially:
> > 
> > are your reasonably sure that future wcn3998-3, wcn3998-4, ... can
> > operate with the generic wcn3998 power settings?
> 
> [Harish] - yes with power settings of wcn3998, wcn3998-3 and wcn3998-4 ...
> also will work.

Thanks for the confirmation, in that case just using 'wcn3998' for now
sounds good to me.