On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 2:49 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> >> Sure, I don't need DT but that's not my point. My point is why require > >> >> these supplies for _all_ devices having PCI id 17cb:1101 (ie. QCA6390) > >> >> then clearly there are such devices which don't need it? To me that's > >> >> bad design and, if I'm understanding correctly, prevents use of > >> >> qcom,ath11k-calibration-variant property. To me having the supplies > >> >> optional in DT is more approriate. > >> >> > >> > > >> > We require them because *they are physically there*. > >> > >> I understand that for all known DT QCA6390 hardware, the supplies should > >> be provided thus they should be required. If in the future we have > >> different design or we represent some pluggable PCI card, then: > >> 1. Probably that PCI card does not need power sequencing, thus no DT > >> description, > >> 2. If still needs power sequencing, you can always amend bindings and > >> un-require the supplies. > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Krzysztof > >> > > > > Kalle, does the above answer your questions? Are these bindings good to go? > > To me most important is that we are on the same page that in some cases > (eg. with M.2 boards) the supplies can be optional and we can update the > bindings doc once such need arises (but we don't make any changes right > now). Based on point 2 from Krzysztof I think we all agree, right? > > Just making sure: if we later change the supplies optional does that > create any problems with backwards compatibility? It's important that > updates go smoothly. No, you can always relax the requirements alright. It's only when you make them more strict that you'll run into backward compatibility issues. Bart
