Hi, On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 8:37 AM Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > @Bjorn, @Konrad in the past we have pushed all WPSS / WiFi firmware to ath10k > > > > and ath11k even if gets executed on the host. I should have caught this while > > > > reviewing DT changes. This branch uses firmware name that isn't compatible > > > > with the existing DT files. Would you insist on adding compatibility symlink > > > > or we'd better fix the DT files? > > > > > > > > > > I think we have a limited user base of sc7280-chrome-common, so we > > > should be able to fix up the DeviceTree, and avoid the symlink. > > > > I think we should keep the ath11k/WCN6750/hw1.0/wpss.mdt symlink, > > that's fine. I was talking about adding the qcom/qcm6490/wpss.mbn -> > > ath11k/WCN6750/hw1.0/wpss.mbn and the same for qcs6490 (just for the > > sake of existing DT files) or it's fine to fix the DT files instead > > and omit the symlink. > > > > Perhaps I'm mistaken, but does WiFi work on those boards today? I'm > inclined to just have us fix up the DT and avoid sprinkling the symlinks > all over the place. > > > I guess this shows that I need to start holding back on future > firmware-name entries until the linux-firmware structure is known. > > > > > > > But I'd prefer Doug's ack on that. As far as I know you can count the number of users of sc7280 Chrome taking your shoes off. It might just be Abhniav and Jessica at Qualcomm. I think they do care about WiFi but they could probably handle a device tree fixup as long as you let them know. Certainly there aren't any devices in the field. -Doug
