[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7c2c89e50fa9b6fdfe9a52f9d3fbcd1518522f3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 07:51:31 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jeff Chen <jeff.chen_1@....com>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
briannorris@...omium.org, francesco@...cini.it, s.hauer@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/21] wifi: nxpwifi: create nxpwifi to support
On Thu, 2026-02-05 at 14:48 +0800, Jeff Chen wrote:
>
> I dropped only the DT binding YAML from this wireless-only series because
> bindings are reviewed by the Devicetree subsystem.
Right, I get that.
> The driver keeps minimal
> and optional OF handling,
Yeah that part seems strange to me. Any OF handling in a driver should
be written per the binding spec (YAML file), I believe, how can you
write it in the driver without reviewing the binding first?
> but SDIO bring-up does not depend on any DT
> properties — enumeration is via SDIO VID/PID and the driver works without a
> binding.
Yes, I get that too, but still you have a driver code that (I believe)
ought to be written to the binding, but have deliberately excluded the
binding. So I don't think the code should be present either?
> The plan is to submit the binding YAML (and any DT properties we actually need,
> e.g. OOB wake IRQ/regulators) as a separate patchset to the DT maintainers so
> review happens in the right subsystem without blocking the wireless review.
Sure, understood, I just think there's a code dependency too, per above.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists