Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: net: wireless: mt76: clarify backoff limit format

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 11/02/2026 09:13, Ryder Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-02-11 at 07:31 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 10:08:56AM -0800, Ryder Lee wrote:
>>> Clarify the format of path backoff limit properties in mt76
>>> binding.
>>> Add explicit documentation for connac2 (mt7915, mt7981, mt7986) and
>>> connac3 (mt7990, mt7992, mt7996...) devices, including the
>>> difference
>>> in beamforming and non-beamforming entries.
>>
>> I do not see any reformatting happening.
>>
> Maybe I should use "rephrase" here.
> 
>>>
>>> Also reformat the description to make is more precise.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Allen Ye <allen.ye@mediatek.com>
>>> Co-developed-by: Allen Ye <allen.ye@mediatek.com>
>>
>> Incorrect SoB chain. Read submitting patches.
>>
> 
> Will fix.
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.yaml  | 20
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.yaml
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.yaml
>>> index ae6b97cdc..4156e1c97 100644
>>> ---
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.yaml
>>> +++
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/mediatek,mt76.yaml
>>> @@ -252,6 +252,16 @@ properties:
>>>                        followed by 10 power limit values. The order
>>> of the
>>>                        channel resource unit settings is RU26,
>>> RU52, RU106,
>>>                        RU242/SU20, RU484/SU40, RU996/SU80 and
>>> RU2x996/SU160.
>>> +                      - For connac2
>>
>> There is no such term as connac2 in this binding at all.
>>
>> What is the point of adding new terms?
> 
> I didn’t think it was needed at first, but other reviewers suggested
> adding it.


Adding secret terms in the binding is not helping.

> 
> The commit message talks about mt7915, mt7990, mt7992, and mt7996,
> which are all PCIe WiFi devices, so their names aren’t included in the
> platform binding. Only WiFi integrated SoCs like mt7981 and mt7986 are
> listed.
> 
> These descriptions are meant to explain how a platform configures TX
> power for the connected WiFi devices, whether it’s a PCIe NIC (like
> Connac3 devices I listed) or an integrated SoC itself (like
> mt7981/mt7986).
> 
> What do you suggest? I’m actually okay with keeping everything as is.

I have no clue what you want to achieve.
> 
> You can also look at the v2 discussion.
> [v2] wifi: mt76: fix backoff fields and max_power calculation
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/54627282cfb8e5a89fe753da66552c0a084f6387.1769557863.git.ryder.lee@mediatek.com/

That's driver code.

> 
>>
>>> +                        - Beamforming entries for BW20~BW160 and
>>> OFDM do not
>>> +                          include 1T1ss.
>>> +                        - When 1T1ss is not used, it should be
>>> filled with 0.
>>> +                      - For connac3
>>> +                        - Beamforming entries for BW20~BW160 and
>>> RU include
>>> +                          1T1ss, but OFDM does not include 1T1ss.
>>> +                        - 1T1ss is taken into account, so no need
>>> to fill with 0.
>>> +                      Non-beamforming and RU entries for both
>>> connac2 and
>>> +                      connac3 include 1T1ss.
>>
>> Why this cannot be a schema?
>>
>>
> Well, actually, it's already a schema. This is just an expanded

Where exactly?

But if it is, then this patch is redundant. Don't repeat constraints in
free form text.


Best regards,
Krzysztof