On 24/04/2024 11:22, quic_zijuhu wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 4:44 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 24/04/2024 10:35, Zijun Hu wrote:
>>> Commit 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
>>> with gpiod_get_optional()") has wrong logic for below case:
>>>
>>> property enable-gpios is not configured for WCN6750 and WCN6855
>>
>> As I said before, bindings say this property is required. I already
>> asked you to provide rationale describing hardware and update the
>> bindings if they bindings are not correct.
>>
> 1)
> you ever given below reply at below link
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bluetooth/52394d97-04c3-4f77-aaae-f1e152cd5632@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> "The pin is required on 6750, 6855 and maybe others. You cannot not have
> the GPIO"
>
> 2) for property enable-gpios, they are required for WCN6750 and WCN6855
> in my opinion, i am a member of BT team.
If they are required, then your commit msg is not precise and code looks
incorrect.
>
> 3) only care about the case property enable-gpios is not configured,
> the original BT driver design logic indeed matches with binging spec's
> requirements before bartosz's wrong change
What? There is no such case according to bindings. I told you already
two times: Either change bindings or this is not valid.
>
> 4) please ask dts owner for help if you suspect current bindings spec
> has something wrong. it is not my responsibility for providing such
> info, that maybe involve CCI.
What?
What or who is DTS owner?
I do not suspect bindings are wrong. You are implying it. Anyway, if
making driver correct according to bindings is not your responsibility,
then this patch is just bogus.
>
> 5) gentle reminder, please realize that there are many lunched products
> already when you try to change some important logic, i don't suggest
> change important logic or setting if there are no actual issue reported.
What?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
