Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 2:52 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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 > > Kalle, > > Is that ok with you? Can we get that queued to avoid the new > check_dtbs warnings in next when the DTS changes land? Yes, this patchset is already on our pending branch and should be applied soon. I was on a long weekend hence the delay. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
