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

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-10-23T12:20:49Z

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.

> 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*.

>
> If you still recommend creating a separate binding for the QCN9274, we are open to
> working on that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof