Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] ath10k: Introduce a devicetree quirk to skip host cap QMI requests

[Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:04:30PM -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 11/10/2025 6:26 AM, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
> > This quirk is used so far for Xiaomi Poco F1.
> > 
> > I'm resending it after ~ 4 years since initial send due to Snapdragon
> > 845 being one of best supported platform for mobile phones running
> > Linux, so it would be shame to not have shiny support.
> > 
> > I'm very much open to suggestions how to solve this in a different way,
> > as the original discussion thread got quiet, see
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/all/b796bfee-b753-479a-a8d6-ba1fe3ee6222@ixit.cz/
> > 
> > There could be other devices in need of this quirk, but if they're not,
> > we could make it compatible specific quirk.
> > 
> > Until merged, available also at:
> >   https://gitlab.com/dhxx/linux/-/commits/b4/skip-host-cam-qmi-req
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
> > ---
> > Amit Pundir (3):
> >       dt-bindings: wireless: ath10k: Introduce quirk to skip host cap QMI requests
> >       ath10k: Introduce a devicetree quirk to skip host cap QMI requests
> >       arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-xiaomi-beryllium: Enable ath10k host-cap skip quirk
> > 
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.yaml       |  6 ++++++
> >  .../arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-xiaomi-beryllium-common.dtsi |  2 ++
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c                       | 13 ++++++++++---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c                      |  3 +++
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.h                      |  1 +
> >  5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > ---
> > base-commit: ab40c92c74c6b0c611c89516794502b3a3173966
> > change-id: 20251110-skip-host-cam-qmi-req-e155628ebc39
> > 
> > Best regards,
> 
> The original thread predates me becoming an ath.git maintainer.
> Just for my information, is the firmware and board files for this platform
> available in linux-firmware? Or does it leverage the files already present
> from the original (Android?) installation?
> 
> I ask because the alternative solution suggested by Kalle would require
> modification of the board file on the device, and that seems more of a hassle
> than just modifying the DT.

I think this should go to the firmware-N file. SNOC platforms now allow
per-platform firmware description files, so it's possible to describe
quirks for the particular firmware file.

> 
> So I'm personally OK with this suggested approach.
> 
> /jeff

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry