On 4/24/24 12:12 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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.
@krzysztof, I'm curious. There is no entry in the binding specifically
for qca6390. Should there be?
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
--
You're more amazing than you think!
