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 14:52:23 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
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

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 2:49 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

No, you can always relax the requirements alright. It's only when you
make them more strict that you'll run into backward compatibility
issues.

Bart