Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 25/04/2024 11:42, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Marc Gonzalez wrote: >> >>> Do you prefer: >>> >>> Option A = never waiting for the MSA_READY indicator for ANYONE >>> Option B = not waiting for the MSA_READY indicator when >>> qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator is defined >>> Option C = not waiting for the MSA_READY indicator for certain >>> platforms (based on root compatible) >>> Option D = some other solution not yet discussed >> >> After firmware-N.bin solution didn't work (sorry about that!) my >> preference is option B. > > Actually, Option B is this patch series. > Could you formally review it? I'm happy with this series and would take it to ath.git, just need an ack from DT maintainers: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/84f20fb5-5d48-419c-8eff-d7044afb81c0@xxxxxxxxxx/ > Perhaps one thing I could do slightly differently is to NOT call > ath10k_qmi_event_msa_ready() a second time if we DO receive the > indicator later. Good point. And maybe add an ath10k_warn() message so that we notice if there's a mismatch. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
