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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mfes+=59WP8dcMsiUApqjsFrY9iVFEdKU6FbTKAFP1k_A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:19:34 +0200 From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org> Cc: "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, Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] dt-bindings: net: ath11k: document the inputs of the ath11k on WCN6855 On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 5:47 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org> wrote: > > Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> writes: > > >> > + - if: > >> > + properties: > >> > + compatible: > >> > + contains: > >> > + const: pci17cb,1103 > >> > + then: > >> > + required: > >> > + - vddrfacmn-supply > >> > + - vddaon-supply > >> > + - vddwlcx-supply > >> > + - vddwlmx-supply > >> > + - vddrfa0p8-supply > >> > + - vddrfa1p2-supply > >> > + - vddrfa1p8-supply > >> > + - vddpcie0p9-supply > >> > + - vddpcie1p8-supply > >> > >> Like we discussed before, shouldn't these supplies be optional as not > >> all modules need them? > >> > > > > The answer is still the same: the ATH11K inside a WCN6855 does - in > > fact - always need them. The fact that the X13s doesn't define them is > > bad representation of HW and I'm fixing it in a subsequent DTS patch. > > But, like we discussed earlier, M.2 boards don't need these so I think > this should be optional. > If they are truly dynamic, plug-and-play M.2 boards then they shouldn't need any description in device-tree. If they are M.2 sockets that use custom, vendor-specific pins (like what is the case on sc8280xp-crd and X13s) then the HW they carry needs to be described correctly. We've discussed that before. Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists