netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: qcom,ath11k: describe the ath11k on QCA6390

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:49:51 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,  "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>,  Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,  Jakub
 Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,  Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,  Rob Herring
 <robh@...nel.org>,  Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,  Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,  Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@...nel.org>,
  linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,  netdev@...r.kernel.org,
  devicetree@...r.kernel.org,  ath11k@...ts.infradead.org,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  ath12k@...ts.infradead.org,  Bartosz
 Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,  Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: qcom,ath11k:
 describe the ath11k on QCA6390

Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> writes:

>> >> Sure, I don't need DT but that's not my point. My point is why require
>> >> these supplies for _all_ devices having PCI id 17cb:1101 (ie. QCA6390)
>> >> then clearly there are such devices which don't need it? To me that's
>> >> bad design and, if I'm understanding correctly, prevents use of
>> >> qcom,ath11k-calibration-variant property. To me having the supplies
>> >> optional in DT is more approriate.
>> >>
>> >
>> > We require them because *they are physically there*.
>>
>> I understand that for all known DT QCA6390 hardware, the supplies should
>> be provided thus they should be required. If in the future we have
>> different design or we represent some pluggable PCI card, then:
>> 1. Probably that PCI card does not need power sequencing, thus no DT
>> description,
>> 2. If still needs power sequencing, you can always amend bindings and
>> un-require the supplies.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>
> Kalle, does the above answer your questions? Are these bindings good to go?

To me most important is that we are on the same page that in some cases
(eg. with M.2 boards) the supplies can be optional and we can update the
bindings doc once such need arises (but we don't make any changes right
now). Based on point 2 from Krzysztof I think we all agree, right?

Just making sure: if we later change the supplies optional does that
create any problems with backwards compatibility? It's important that
updates go smoothly.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches