On 2/25/2025 4:14 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 25/02/2025 12:45, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 11:22:25AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 25/02/2025 10:50, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:30:51AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> There is no such property as qcom,ath12k-calibration-variant: neither in >>>>> the bindings nor in the driver. See dtbs_check: >>>>> >>>>> x1e80100-lenovo-yoga-slim7x.dtb: wifi@0: 'qcom,ath12k-calibration-variant' does not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' >>>>> >>>> >>>> Adding Jeff and ath12k@ to the cc list. Is the driver able to find the >>>> calibration variant in case it is not running on the ACPI system? I see >>>> that it uses dmi_walk. Does it work in the non-ACPI case? >>> >>> >>> But nothing parses such string as 'qcom,ath12k-calibration-variant' (see >>> git grep), so how would driver use it? >> >> That's what I'm asking: is the property redundant or is it correct and >> it is a driver that needs to be fixed? > > I assume driver will need something like that property, but that's not a > reason to accept incorrect one in DTS. One cannot add properties to DTS > without bindings, so bypassing bindings review, and then claim "but my > driver needs them". Send proper patches for driver first which will get > a review. We definitely need a calibration variant entry. I've pinged the development team to get the driver patch. I'm also verifying internally that there are no issues with your renaming proposal: qcom,ath1*k-calibration-variant => qcom,calibration-variant https://msgid.link/20250225-b-wifi-qcom-calibration-variant-v1-0-3b2aa3f89c53@xxxxxxxxxx /jeff
