On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 09:48:41 +0200, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 14/08/2024 10:23, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Describe the inputs from the PMU of the ath11k module on WCN6855.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> v1 -> v2:
>>> - update the example
>>
>> I don't understand why this patch is no being picked up. The code
>> correct represents the piece of hardware. The supplies should be
>> required, because this one particular device - the one described in this
>> binding - cannot work without them.
>
> I have already explained the situation. With supplies changed to
> optional I'm happy take the patch.
>
No, silent NAKing and needless stalling is what you're doing. I responded to
your last email with extensive clarifications. You're being told by the
experts on the subject matter (Krzysztof and Conor) that the change is correct.
The change has no functional impact on the driver code. It's also in line with
commit 71839a929d9e ("dt-bindings: net: wireless: qcom,ath11k: describe the
ath11k on QCA6390") under which we had literally the same discussion and that
you ended up picking up after all.
Arnd: I've added you here to bring this to your attention because it's somewhat
related to what we discussed yesterday. It's a change that is very much
SoC-specific, that has trouble getting upstream due to the driver's maintainer
unwilingness to accept it. Is this a case where a change to DT bindings should
go through the SoC rather than the driver tree?
Best Regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski
