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

Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-06-12T12:52:42Z

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 2:49 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.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