On 11/22/2024 9:55 AM, Cheng Jiang (IOE) wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On 11/22/2024 12:28 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 at 06:12, Cheng Jiang <quic_chejiang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dmitry, >>> >>> On 11/20/2024 6:44 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:54:26PM +0800, Cheng Jiang wrote: >>>>> Add QCA6698 qcom,qca6698-bt compatible strings. >>>> >>>> Why? Is it the same chip as WCN6855 or a different chip? Is it >>>> completely compatible? >>>> >>> They are different chips. But it's compatible with WCN6855. >> >> So, do we really need new compat? Will/can it use the same firmware? > We need to use a different firmware. Let me check if using > "firmware-name" allows us to omit the new soc type. > From the driver's perspective, the only change is the need to load a > different firmware. > it is a good idea to use existing optional property firmware-name to specify RAMPATCH additionally. that would simplify logic a lot for your requirements. (^^)(^^). >> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Jiang <quic_chejiang@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/qualcomm-bluetooth.yaml | 2 ++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/qualcomm-bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/qualcomm-bluetooth.yaml >>>>> index 9019fe7bcdc6..527f947289af 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/qualcomm-bluetooth.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/qualcomm-bluetooth.yaml >>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ properties: >>>>> enum: >>>>> - qcom,qca2066-bt >>>>> - qcom,qca6174-bt >>>>> + - qcom,qca6698-bt >>>>> - qcom,qca9377-bt >>>>> - qcom,wcn3988-bt >>>>> - qcom,wcn3990-bt >>>>> @@ -175,6 +176,7 @@ allOf: >>>>> compatible: >>>>> contains: >>>>> enum: >>>>> + - qcom,qca6698-bt >>>>> - qcom,wcn6855-bt >>>>> then: >>>>> required: >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.25.1 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
