Re: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: milos-fairphone-fp6: Enable Bluetooth

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 3/13/26 11:40 AM, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Wed Jan 21, 2026 at 12:52 PM CET, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 1/16/26 3:50 PM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> Add the nodes to describe the WCN6755 chip with its PMU and Bluetooth
>>> parts.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Alexander Koskovich for helping with the bringup, adding
>>> 'clocks' to the PMU node to make Bluetooth work.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos-fairphone-fp6.dts | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 174 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos-fairphone-fp6.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos-fairphone-fp6.dts
>>> index 52895dd9e4fa..cbe1507b0aaa 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos-fairphone-fp6.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos-fairphone-fp6.dts
>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ / {
>>>  
>>>  	aliases {
>>>  		serial0 = &uart5;
>>> +		serial1 = &uart11;
>>>  	};
>>>  
>>>  	gpio-keys {
>>> @@ -215,6 +216,67 @@ trip1 {
>>>  			};
>>>  		};
>>>  	};
>>> +
>>> +	wcn6750-pmu {
>>> +		compatible = "qcom,wcn6750-pmu"; /* WCN6755 */
>>
>> I think a fallback compatible would be in order, if the data matches
>> exactly
> 
> That'd give us these changes
> 
> milos.dtsi:
> 
>     -+                  compatible = "qcom,wcn6750-wifi";
>     ++                  compatible = "qcom,wcn6755-wifi", "qcom,wcn6750-wifi";
> 
> milos-fairphone-fp6.dts:
> 
>     -+          compatible = "qcom,wcn6750-pmu"; /* WCN6755 */
>     ++          compatible = "qcom,wcn6755-pmu", "qcom,wcn6750-pmu";
> 
>     -+          compatible = "qcom,wcn6750-bt"; /* WCN6755 */
>     ++          compatible = "qcom,wcn6755-bt", "qcom,wcn6750-bt";
> 
> Plus 3 new patches for dt-bindings, with commit message something like
> 
> Document the WCN6755 WiFi using a fallback to WCN6750 since the two
> chips seem to be completely pin and software compatible. In fact the
> original downstream kernel just pretends the WCN6755 is a WCN6750.
> 
> Does this sound okay?

To me yes, but I have zero insight into what's the actual difference/
whether there's any. Maybe +Jeff could spare some details

Konrad