On 4/19/2024 6:37 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 23:16, quic_zijuhu wrote:
>> On 4/19/2024 12:52 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2024 16:06, Zijun Hu wrote:
>>>> This reverts commit 56d074d26c5828773b00b2185dd7e1d08273b8e8.
>>>>
>>>> Commit 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
>>>> with gpiod_get_optional()") will cause serious regression issue for
>>>> several QCA controllers such as QCA_WCN6750,QCA_WCN6855,QCA_ROME,
>>>
>>> The pin is required on 6750, 6855 and maybe others. You cannot not have
>>> the GPIO.
>>>
>>> This is no correct fix. You provide wrong DTS and, instead fixing it,
>>> try to revert kernel code.
>>>
>>> No, fix your DTS first.
>>>
>> no. your point is not right.
>>
>> 1) do you have any evidence that the hci_qca driver must use reset GPIO?
>
> I think we talk here about enable-gpios, right? Then the evidence are
> bindings.
>
yes. properties within bindings only means driver supporting it, don't means user must
config it. the gpio is got by devm_gpiod_get_optional() variant. that means it is optional
about if user need to config it.
>> 2) why does original design do error return when get GPIO error if GPIO is mandatory?
>
> If GPIO is mandatory, then it is expected to return error. What is the
> problem here?
>
sorry, i miss a NOT for my question. my question is that
2) why does original design NOT do error return when get GPIO error if GPIO is mandatory?
>
>> 3) i meet many customer cases that BT are working fine without hci_qca operating the GPIO,
>> there is why HCI_QUIRK_NON_PERSISTENT_SETUP are introduced.
>
> Bindings tell different story and nothing in the commit msg explained
> this. You did not correct bindings either.
>
don't need to correct bindings. i believe bindings does not say enable gpio
must be configured.
>
>> 4) does the reverted change solve the issue your mentioned ?
>
> ??? I did not mention any issue. I am saying that your rationale is
> either not complete or not correct.
>
do you suggest about how to make it complete?
> Specifically, the enable-gpios ARE currently required, so whatever you
> claim here is not correct till they are required. Make them optional and
> then your arguments could have sense.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
