Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: net: wireless: update required properties for ath12k PCI module

Raj Kumar Bhagat
2024-10-25T10:05:15Z

On 10/23/2024 5:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/10/2024 12:28, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>> On 10/23/2024 12:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2024 08:53, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2024 12:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 23/10/2024 08:45, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2024 12:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/10/2024 08:03, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>>>>>>> The current device-tree bindings for the Ath12K module list many
>>>>>>>> WCN7850-specific properties as required. However, these properties are
>>>>>>>> not applicable to other Ath12K devices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hence, remove WCN7850-specific properties from the required section,
>>>>>>>> retaining only generic properties valid across all Ath12K devices.
>>>>>>>> WCN7850-specific properties will remain required based on the device's
>>>>>>>> compatible enum.
>>>>>>> Just not true. These apply to all devices described in this binding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NAK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't send patches for your downstream stuff.
>>>>>> This is not for downstream. This series is the per-requisite for ath12k
>>>>>> MLO support in upstream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the subsequent patch [2/6] we are adding new device (QCN9274) in this
>>>>>> binding that do not require the WCN7850 specific properties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a refactoring patch for the next patch [2/6].
>>>>> It's just wrong. Not true. At this point of patch there are no other
>>>>> devices. Don't refactor uselessly introducing incorrect hardware
>>>> Ok then, If we squash this patch with the next patch [2/6], that actually adding
>>>> the new device, then this patch changes are valid right?
>>> Yes, except I asked to have separate binding for devices with different
>>> interface (WSI). You add unrelated devices to same binding, growing it
>>> into something tricky to manage. Your second patch misses if:then
>>> disallwing all this WSI stuff for existing device... and then you should
>>> notice there is absolutely *nothing* in common.
>>>
>> I understand your point about having separate bindings if there are no common
>> properties. However, the title and description of this binding indicate that it
>> is intended for Qualcomm ath12k wireless devices with a PCI bus. Given this, the
>> QCN9274 seems to fit within the same binding.
> Feel free to fix it. Or add common schema used by multiple bindings.
>
>> Additionally, there will likely be more properties added in the future that could
>> be common. For example, the “qcom,ath12k-calibration-variant” property (which the
> You are supposed to add them now, not later. See writing bindings. They
> are supposed to be complete.
>

Sure will add "qcom,ath12k-calibration-variant" in next version.

>> ath12k host currently doesn’t support reading and using, hence we are not adding it
>> now) could be a common property.
> What is "host"? Either the device has this property or not. Whether host
> supports something does not really matter, right? You have hardware
> property or you have it *not*.

Ah, my bad. I meant to say “ath12k driver”.