Hi, getting back to this old thread, here's the discussion: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9615183/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9615185/ Sven Eckelmann <sven.eckelmann@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Dienstag, 21. März 2017 21:56:54 CET Rob Herring wrote: > [...] >> Is this always the case? There's never some variation beyond the >> reference design that a BDF difference can't handle? > > I have no knowledge about anything which isn't handled directly by the BDF > variants. But maybe Kalle can correct me here. Currently I'm not aware of any extra properties which we would need in ath10k, having the custom board file seems to be the only requirement I have seen. >> > They are basically "qcom,ipq4019-wifi" + a product specific string. The first >> > part is therefore the string which identifies the wifi device(s) in the >> > QCA4018/4019 SoC. The product specific string is simply the part (or a >> > variation of it) which would been used before in >> > "qcom,ath10k-calibration-variant" - just to make it "use a more specific >> > compatible string". >> >> It would probably be more like: "asus,rt-ac58u-wifi", "qcom,ipq4019-wifi" >> >> A more specific compatible is insurance that at some later point in >> time you can distinguish between 2 boards due to some difference even >> if now you believe they are "the same". > [...] >> I think the separate property is fine if this is the only one you >> envision needing to add. If there's 10 more properties, then I'd feel >> more strongly towards a board specific compatible string. > > Thank you. Let's wait a little bit in case someone from QCA/Codeaurora > has some additional input. I didn't see any comments from anyone else and I think Sven's approach here is the best. Sven, can you submit v2 so that we get an ack from device tree maintainers and I can apply these? -- Kalle Valo��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
