linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: qualcomm: add QCA9379 compatible

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: <3350aae1-a4a2-4a7c-a075-c29c8f67f5a2@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:14:28 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Felix Kaechele <felix@...chele.ca>, Marcel Holtmann
 <marcel@...tmann.org>, Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
 Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@...nel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
 Balakrishna Godavarthi <quic_bgodavar@...cinc.com>,
 Rocky Liao <quic_rjliao@...cinc.com>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: qualcomm: add QCA9379
 compatible

On 14/08/2024 00:11, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look, Krzysztof.
> 
> In this case I think it would be easiest to just use the existing 
> qca9377 fallback and drop his part of the patchset.

You need then other patchset documenting new compatible with fallback.
Compatibles are always specific.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst

> 
> As for the supplies: For the particular module I am working with the 
> supplies are mostly shared with the WiFi side. So it "just works" 
> without taking care of supplies on the BT side.

You still should describe the hardware.

> 
> But I agree it would be more correct to add and handle these as well. 
> The documentation I have access to through the FCC filing of this module 
> is not really conclusive of how to correctly name them in this context.
> I would rather avoid submitting a patch with incorrect supply names.

OK



Best regards,
Krzysztof