Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp-crd: model the PMU of the on-board wcn6855

Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-09-06T07:45:57Z

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 9:26 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:41:44PM GMT, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@kernel.org> writes:
> >
> > > On 5.09.2024 3:00 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:56 PM Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As you are going to post another revision, please also add
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> qcom,ath11k-calibration-variant
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I had it in earlier revisions. The only one we could add here would be
> > >>>> the one from X13s as QCom has not yet released the data for the CRD.
> > >>>> Johan and Konrad were against adding this here if it doesn't refer to
> > >>>> the correct one so I dropped it.
> > >>>
> > >>> As Kalle usually merges data with some delay it's not infrequent to
> > >>> have DTS which names calibration variant, but board-2.bin doesn't have
> > >>> corresponding data. The driver safely falls back to the data without
> > >>> variant if it can find it. Als usually it's us who supply the
> > >>> calibration name.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Johan, Konrad,
> > >>
> > >> What do you think? Do we know the exact name and should I add it or
> > >> should we wait until it's in board-2.bin?
> > >
> > > If we can agree on the string identifier with Kalle in advance, we can
> > > add it even before the boardfile drops
> >
> > There have not been really any naming rules for the variant string, it
> > just needs to be unique so that it doesn't conflict with other variant
> > strings. What have you been thinking?
>
> QC_8380_CRD (following DMI / Windows name) or QC_X1E80100_CRD (following
> marketing name). Or maybe QTI_ instead of QC_. WDYT?
>

Is there any central authority listing these names? Or are they just
agreed upon on the mailing list? I honestly don't know where they come
from.

Bart