On 02/04/2024 17:55, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 18:31, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > >> So, if I understand correctly, I take this to mean that I should: >> >> 1) DELETE the qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator boolean property, >> 2) ADD a "qcom,msm8998-wifi" (name OK?) compatible, > > I'd say, this is not correct. There is no "msm8998-wifi". Can you explain what you mean by: 'There is no "msm8998-wifi".' ? Do you mean that: this compatible string does not exist? (I am proposing that it be created.) Or do you mean that: "msm8998-wifi" is a bad name? I meant to mimic these strings for various sub-blocks: arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-rpm-proc", "qcom,rpm-proc"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-rpmpd"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-tsens", "qcom,tsens-v2"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-tsens", "qcom,tsens-v2"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-qmp-pcie-phy"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-qmp-ufs-phy"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-tcsr", "syscon"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-tcsr", "syscon"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-pinctrl"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-mss-pil"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2", arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-gpucc"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-slpi-pas"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-dwc3", "qcom,dwc3"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-qmp-usb3-phy"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-qusb2-phy"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-sdhci", "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-mdss"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-dpu"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-dsi-ctrl", "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-dsi-ctrl", "qcom,mdss-dsi-ctrl"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-venus"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-adsp-pas"; arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi: compatible = "qcom,msm8998-apcs-hmss-global", And these strings in ath11k: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml: - qcom,ipq8074-wifi Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml: - qcom,ipq6018-wifi Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml: - qcom,wcn6750-wifi Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath11k.yaml: - qcom,ipq5018-wifi > I'd say, we should take a step back and actually verify how this was > handled in the vendor kernel. In our commercial product, we use the ath10k driver in the vendor kernel (v4.4 r38-rel). It looks like Jeff has already performed the code analysis wrt vendor vs mainline (including user-space tools). Regards
