On 23/10/2024 08:53, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote: > On 10/23/2024 12:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 23/10/2024 08:45, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote: >>> On 10/23/2024 12:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 23/10/2024 08:03, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote: >>>>> The current device-tree bindings for the Ath12K module list many >>>>> WCN7850-specific properties as required. However, these properties are >>>>> not applicable to other Ath12K devices. >>>>> >>>>> Hence, remove WCN7850-specific properties from the required section, >>>>> retaining only generic properties valid across all Ath12K devices. >>>>> WCN7850-specific properties will remain required based on the device's >>>>> compatible enum. >>>> Just not true. These apply to all devices described in this binding. >>>> >>>> NAK. >>>> >>>> Don't send patches for your downstream stuff. >>> This is not for downstream. This series is the per-requisite for ath12k >>> MLO support in upstream. >>> >>> In the subsequent patch [2/6] we are adding new device (QCN9274) in this >>> binding that do not require the WCN7850 specific properties. >>> >>> This is a refactoring patch for the next patch [2/6]. >> It's just wrong. Not true. At this point of patch there are no other >> devices. Don't refactor uselessly introducing incorrect hardware > > Ok then, If we squash this patch with the next patch [2/6], that actually adding > the new device, then this patch changes are valid right? Yes, except I asked to have separate binding for devices with different interface (WSI). You add unrelated devices to same binding, growing it into something tricky to manage. Your second patch misses if:then disallwing all this WSI stuff for existing device... and then you should notice there is absolutely *nothing* in common. Best regards, Krzysztof
