From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.andi.de1.cc (mail.andi.de1.cc [178.238.236.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECD7D236A72; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 13:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.238.236.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736859946; cv=none; b=OQYRlx61sfaRwQDNovXwxCniWzVR+j1n8EEGkDiVaz1IRTP10oHaoKz6T/BeiidXtGH2emIl+Itq3laxLLKS/bS3odzq6fQPwagUrHD/2a42N09PjnphSe5lL4jLKiX4o4934BsYxFTB+3RilaNNES5uicFHycVnEBbH3lw5pzs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736859946; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AOiznMyP39NmPXpGmF2byI0PTAqWq3rqIjsp+EvKE9o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Gn+1GhSKsf9SQGdGidkWy+4s71oCkNAPTCiV+Yy/jldzzMYN6A/ATIVEWgq2uWh0WD2gWdW3aBdpHEowug5+I5vWzvWqntjkINzQdD7TYdBB4pAZk3VBd8m3an7iZ9U5o6FCB7DGSTOzoz5pO3Q50OC3wBiiI1dWyZC7Y/Iag3c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kemnade.info; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kemnade.info; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kemnade.info header.i=@kemnade.info header.b=gcaPYYfO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.238.236.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kemnade.info Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kemnade.info Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kemnade.info header.i=@kemnade.info header.b="gcaPYYfO" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kemnade.info; s=20220719; h=References:In-Reply-To:Cc:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=OiK37tyA4OKQ3PjZtut4wihyLEmvFD3y7BWJQEvZK4A=; b=gcaPYYfOj8IcFjkKklIjOq9Gie Uen1YSwmPUQsJhQZULWR64VHeKOAke2/wbDNsUv5yqvFcnbkYsqPPPhL4Iyj90DiSIY4zKYcs7Sov KHoRZBFS4ABySExOyOdlwvexT2vsgGqfg2yi+sOaQJZSX4JUWlsS3ssDX4O/o2WWANsf6MtFP21Wf WYegsT5+kjv1pbRUJfxAdqFEjQoT5Ddw+YtirJzgGICojcrlnSodacPP4ZuZYyjLXWt1WbQuUUpzD l9WI8trFIxQZIH6mTDGlT0ZwYLqvdQKvZBGh7c3L2oMV7cRy6ce9iPCyRF+kQCVilt/jV5CyBRTvM YQwf2Iww==; Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:05:25 +0100 From: Andreas Kemnade To: Johan Hovold Cc: marcel@holtmann.org, luiz.dentz@gmail.com, pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de, jirislaby@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, Adam Ford , Tony Lindgren , tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com, =?UTF-8?B?UMOpdGVy?= Ujfalusi , robh@kernel.org, hns@goldelico.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] Bluetooth: ti-st: Add GNSS subdevice for TI Wilink chips Message-ID: <20250114140525.763b4c33@akair> In-Reply-To: References: <20240606183032.684481-1-andreas@kemnade.info> <20240606183032.684481-3-andreas@kemnade.info> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am Tue, 14 Jan 2025 13:14:45 +0100 schrieb Johan Hovold : > > GNSS support is available through > > channel 9 whilst FM is through channel 8. Add a platform subdevice for > > GNSS so that a driver for that functionality can be build. > > > To avoid having > > useless GNSS devices, do it only when the devicetree node name contains > > gnss. > > That's seems like an unorthodox use of device tree. These devices are > primarily (WiFi and) Bluetooth controllers so should probably not have > gone about and updated the node names to 'bluetooth-gnss' as you did, > for example, here: yes, the matching of the node name is a bit unorthodox. How do you define primary? The old design with ti-st driver and bluetooth and other functions on top does not look like anything primary. If you look at the current situation with the GNSS stuff sitting on to of bluetooth, the picture is different, but that is implementation. As the devicetree is describing hardware, having the nodenames describe things seems like the right way to do. But I agree with you that the driver should not care about the node name, but use a boolean property. Regards, Andreas