[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+kEDGEjR7cGA0zZfuKkYg37mJZs3Fn7eKbgkB6hdjDLtGxjRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 20:28:33 +0100
From: Jérôme de Bretagne <jerome.debretagne@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Cc: Dale Whinham <daleyo@...il.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@...nel.org>, Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@....qualcomm.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
ath12k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] dt-bindings: wireless: ath12k: Add disable-rfkill property
Le lun. 1 déc. 2025 à 08:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> a écrit :
>
> On 01/12/2025 02:14, Dale Whinham wrote:
> > From: Jérôme de Bretagne <jerome.debretagne@...il.com>
> >
> > rfkill should be disabled according to the Surface Pro 11's DSDT.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250113074810.29729-3-quic_lingbok@quicinc.com/
> > has added support to read the ACPI bitflag when ACPI is supported.
>
> It wasn't merged. If it was, reference commits, not random emails.
Good catch, It was merged in commit c6a7c0b09d5f, we will reference
this commit instead.
> > Document the disable-rfkill property to expose one specific feature
> > (DISABLE_RFKILL_BIT) for devices described with a DT, so that the
> > feature can be disabled.
>
> This is just a circular logic. Add property to have property in DT so
> that you can use feature.
>
> No, describe the hardware or actual problem instead.
Point taken. Would something like the following be better?
"For some devices, Wi-Fi is entirely hard blocked by default making
the Wi-Fi radio unusable, except if rfkill is disabled as described
by an ACPI bitflag on those models. Add the disable-rfkill property
to expose the DISABLE_RFKILL_BIT feature for devices described
by a devicetree."
> You still need to answer Rob's questions.
Indeed, we didn't answer another question, sorry. Here it is for
reference:
> [Rob] Assuming it belongs in DT, why is this ath12k specific? Could be
> for any wireless chip...
Agree, it could be applicable to any wireless chip, it should be moved
somewhere else. Would ieee80211.yaml be the right target file for
this property? Or any other file suggestion instead? Thank you.
Best regards,
Jérôme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists